Forecasting Australia’s monstrous property oversupply

Last week I produced a series of charts plotting Australia’s projected population growth, as forecast in last week’s federal budget, against the latest dwelling approvals, commencements and completions data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (example below).

The population data these charts were based upon is presented below, taken directly from the federal budget:

Today I want to go one step further and present the same population data against the net dwelling additions data (completions minus demolitions) provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

As this dwelling additions data is only current to June 2020, I have assumed that they continue to fall over the three year forward estimates to their cyclical lows over the past decade.

The below chart plots these projections at the national level:

The next chart presents this same data as a ratio of population increase versus net dwelling additions:

As you can see, even if dwelling construction falls gradually to cyclical lows (125,900 a year in 2023), Australia will face a whopping supply glut of 155,000 net dwelling additions versus 56,000 population increase in 2021 and 141,000 net dwelling additions versus 98,000 population increase in 2022.

Next are the same charts for NSW:

NSW faces a gigantic supply glut with 42,000 net dwelling additions versus a 2,000 population decline in 2021 and 34,000 net dwelling additions versus 7,000 population increase in 2022.

Next VIC:

VIC also faces an enormous supply glut with 51,000 net dwelling additions versus 13,000 population growth in 2021 and 48,000 net dwelling additions versus 30,000 population increase in 2022.

Next QLD:

QLD faces a smaller supply glut with 32,000 net dwelling additions versus 33,000 population growth in 2021 and 30,000 net dwelling additions versus 41,000 population increase in 2022.

Next WA:

WA faces a big supply glut with 15,000 net dwelling additions versus 10,000 population growth in 2021 and 15,000 net dwelling additions versus 14,000 population increase in 2022.

Finally, SA:

SA faces a huge supply glut with 7,200 net dwelling additions versus 1,000 population growth in 2021 and 7,100 net dwelling additions versus 5,000 population increase in 2022.

There is no sugar coating this data. Australia’s major housing markets are facing enormous property supply gluts as immigration and population growth collapses.

This will ensures that rental vacancies continue to balloon and rents will continue to fall, with apartments in Sydney and Melbourne most likely to be impacted:

I would not want to be a financially stretched landlord in either Sydney or Melbourne right now. On the flipside, it will be great for renters.

Unconventional Economist


      • pfh007.comMEMBER


        This bit

        “..This will ensures that rental vacancies continue to balloon …..”

        A balloon would be 5% vacancy rates nationwide. At the moment they are NOTHING like that with that nationwide rate well under 3% and below 2% in some capitals and even less in many locations where people actually want to live.

        Who thinks rents have fallen so far as to be cheap?


        Certainly there has been some improvement with the borders sealed shut and existing projects being completed but a “monstrous property oversupply” is absurd. The new project pipeline is a dead duck and the borders will be open again to loads of long stay immigrants who do not care about spending a few weeks in hotel paid for by YOU (yes we will pay for it because big business says we must).

        A bit of residential property doomsayer is great but this is just over the top and is counter productive because it will support reopening of the borders and crunching new supply.

        Especially when there is a much more plausible case to be made about retail and commercial property.

  1. As a non-economist am I naive to conclude that the Australian housing market is no longer a ‘market’ that responds to supply and demand?

    Isn’t it more like a centrally planned economy run by the state that artificially manipulates supply and demand by regulating immigration flow and guaranteeing debt?

    Because isn’t the debt being used to produce supply via a central planning of never ending population growth effectively guaranteed by the same central government by covering the bank’s risk – produced by ballooning debt in a never ending Mobius loop?

    Where’s the ‘market”?

    In other words, isn’t it about time we removed the government guarantee for our banks and allowed them to manage their own risk? Because when this all falls over, isn’t it the taxpayers who will pay for it because the banks have been made “too big to fail”? And isn’t that the model of an authoritarian state where those who can least afford it pay for the collapse of a system that is not actually ‘capitalist’ or ‘free enterprise’ but the consequence of a state interfering in the market and manipulating it to benefit the political donor class?

    What is clearly a housing oversupply issue is seen by our government as a ‘human’ supply problem. Dress it up all you like, but given that no one has ever cast a vote on this business model the undemocratic forces and machine men behind this have been exposed. It is a model very similar in many respects to the slave trade – the profit from plantations was 100% correlated with cheap labour and drove the mass movement of people and their bondage. Our current form of legal bondage is through debt and recently our Treasurer has proven that he is on the side of the slave owners.

    The very same arguments about the end of the real estate ‘market’ were make when slavery was abolished – what ever will this do to the market!?

    Our governance is immoral, unethical and corrupt. But the ALP is no longer interested in pointing this out – as they have become the enemy of the people and the friend to the banks and developers.

    • happy valleyMEMBER

      And the banks and developers will use Labor up and spit them out because the Morrison LNP are more akin to themselves.

      • pfh007.comMEMBER

        Why should bankers be a protected specie?

        Because bankers give the “credit worthy” access to new money that allows the affluent to become even more affluent.

        Talking about this is forbidden however.

        First rule of Banker club is never talk about Banker club.

        Have you noticed that MMT generally (some do talk about it a bit from time to time) ignores the role played by the bankers even though their banker credit dominants the broad money supply.

        • The first rule is MMT only describes the potential of the currant monetary system in shaping policy debate, contra the decades of some working from a deductive prescriptive framework in shaping society as they saw fit. In some cases even these proponents, at a high level, were aware but for political reason kept quiet.

          Moving on … the the suggestion that this whole thing is a bank drama and not the dominate economic paradigm, which enabled not only banks, but Wall St and C-Corps to engage in anti social activities without any personal responsibility is detached from reality. Banks and other nefarious enterprises have been brought to heal in the past and can be done again, but for some this is egregious due to ideological baggage and fears of state totalitarianism memes.

          Self fulfilling really because these are the same sorts that have enabled all the above at onset.

          The myopic focus on money and banks misses the forest for the trees, all could have happened under any alternative system and has from a historical perspective. That would seem to suggest a more pertinent feature front runs any concerns about banks or money issues, seemingly a hangover from the barter theory with a side of the defunct says law.

          • “.. the the suggestion that this whole thing is a bank drama and not the dominate economic paradigm, …”

            Here comes the stock standard bit of “what about ism” apologia for the privatisation of power over public money.

            “….Don’t talk about the domination of public money by private banks and their endless lobbying and revolving doors with government and the regulators because we gotta talk about the conspiracy by rich people to use power to stay rich….”


            The privatisation of public money power so that the bankers get to choose who is “credit worthy” is precisely how the rich stay rich and ensure that just enough of the middle class (the influencers etc ….people like Skippy) give their support to the scam.

            Remove the bankers monopoly on operating risk free deposit accounts at the RBA and the rich lose their best tool for getting what they want.



          • Your use of public is a complete fabrication to advance your own personal agenda pft.

            Decades of neoliberalism was not advanced by credit issuers, albeit they did enjoy the gifts it enabled. Your argument that – none of this would have happened if for not banks – has no foundations in the multivariate outcomes of the philosophy pushed by the neoliberal thinkers [tm]. If such were true the great depression would have never happened, but then again homo economicus ubermenschen is just a faint echo now …

          • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

            “Your argument that – none of this would have happened if for not banks – has no foundations”

            Is that the entirety of 007s world view? or Just the area he is primarily most motivated to comment upon,…like Smithy’s Primary concerns with the ranking of everyone on the intersectional hierarchy of oppression scale and denigrating ALL “Wh!te” people for the actions of a minority of “WhIte” people who weren’t even the ancestors of most “Wh!te” People. (except for Reusa of course)

          • pfh007.comMEMBER


            There are plenty of economic subjects that attract my attention. You can read them in the extensive archives at the Glass Pyramid. Everything from trade, land use, mineral resources, property you name it.

            I give banking particular attention because the monetary system is pretty important to just about everything and if that is dysfunctional due to a parasitical privatisation then it is hard to make much progress on anything else.

            You only need to read ALP history and Hansard concerning the introduction of the Commonwealth Bank by the ALP to understand that once upon a time the ALP knew very well the importance of power over public money.

            You can see that in the conclusions of Ben Chifley in 1937 and also in Sweepers view that full bank nationalisation is the best option.


            Skippy is a shill for banks because he has a family connection. That is the start and finish of his analysis.

            The rest is just smear and deflection.

          • pfh007.comMEMBER

            “.. Decades of neoliberalism was not advanced by credit issuers, albeit they did enjoy the gifts it enabled. ..”

            Did enjoy the gifts it enabled?

            Is that what you call the multimillion dollar salaries, the stock options, the access to credit to private equity to buy up industries and form cartels and diminish competition, the revolving doors between banks, regulators and those with access to great scads of bank created credit.

            All given legitimacy by denying the public any access to a public option.

            You are just shilling for banks and trying to conceal it with your endless “what about Koch brothers” deflections.

          • Is that the entirety of 007s world view? or Just the area he is primarily most motivated to comment upon,…like Smithy’s Primary concerns with the ranking of everyone on the intersectional hierarchy of oppression scale and denigrating ALL “Wh!te” people for the actions of a minority of “WhIte” people who weren’t even the ancestors of most “Wh!te” People. (except for Reusa of course)

            Ermo ! Didn’t your mother teach you it’s rude to make up complete bullsh!t about other people ?

        • “Because bankers give the “credit worthy” access to new money that allows the affluent to become even more affluent.”

          I remember this old argument and what quarters it comes from pft.

          Firstly who was it that messed with how credit was issued and held, additionally at what rates could be charged on it or the fees attached to service it, how loss of share of productivity created a pool of people seeking more credit to pay the increasing costs of all aspects of life in a pay to play skin in the game private sector reality, and at the end of the day investor appetite drives the whole bus down the mountain road.

          There are quite a few pieces to the puzzle, but the agency which gave license too it all is quite clear.

          • pfh007.comMEMBER

            “.. I remember this old argument and what quarters it comes from pft….”

            That smells like a standard bit of Skippy smear deflection.

            Are you seriously trying to argue that banks DO NOT make the decision on who is given access to bank credit?

            Of course banks make the determination of credit worthiness.

            That would be much less of a problem if they were not given a monopoly on access to deposit accounts at the RBA thereby forcing everyone who wishes to operate a bank account into a business relationship with a bank.

            End the bank monopoly on deposit accounts at the RBA and the associated fraud of unreserved at call deposit accounts and your banker buddies can lend money to whoever they want.


          • Do you suffer some sort of cognitive dysfunction pft … I clearly said banks took advantage of what neoliberal legal philosophy afforded them and that this is also applicable to all other enterprises. The is a preponderance of evidence which clearly shows the evolution of vast swaths of industry from pre to post neoliberal dominance.

            This has always been an issue for you where I can clearly show and attribute historical progression and the results from each event compounding while the time line moves forward and your response is banks via credit caused the entire problem set. Firstly banks were doing half of the stuff they were before neoliberalism became dominate.

            I mean what does credit or banks have to do with McKinsey & Company fee structures used by both banks and non bank credit issuers or the lowering of credit standards by 2% back in the day to facilitate revolving debt with increased fee services, not to mention the legal arguments which enabled high IR rates on credit to begin with, et al …

            All of this is a legal proposition before it can even be used in the market, so pray tell how did it get or become legal in the first place. Especial when proponents of the Chicago school and libertarian economic freedom and liberty camps were quite loud and proud about pushing it all.

            BTW if your memory serves my early years at MB and my position on how banks were allowed to operate, let alone the 3 blind monkeys on the shadow sector – what plaza wrought, and how C-corps generally views consumers [not citizens] completely repudiates your suggestion that I’m a pro bank type as they are currently operated. My argument is they are not the core issue and the focus on them is a distraction from more important economic factors.

            Your problem is the whole trope about fake warehouse receipts and a bad case of wanting to have your free market cake and eat it too … not my problem.

          • pfh007.comMEMBER


            “.. I clearly said banks took advantage of what neoliberal legal philosophy afforded them and that this is also applicable to all other enterprises…”

            No cognitive issues here old chum.

            You just did it again. Attempt to deflect attention from banks with a dose of whataboutism.

            “Everyone took advantage of neoliberalism….blah blah blah”

            The public monetary system sits at the dead centre of all economic activity and how it operates is of critical importance.

            Especially when a large chunk of control over public money creation (or its effective substitute) has been handed over to privately owned and operated organisations to distribute as they see fit.

            Whatever criticisms are justified in respect of privatisation / neoliberalism apply in to the banks by the truckload if not PANIMAX shipload.

            And that is exactly what you are trying to deflect attention from.

            Why is interesting.

            You clearly are not being paid by anyone to run the banking industry line (hey we are just intermediaries and like every other private business trying to make a dollar) but you do have a massive ego and a lack of insight into your own cognitive biases.

            Combined with a distant family connection that is probably enough of an explanation.

          • I’m not deflecting pft, I’m pointing out your ex ante deductive head shrinking which actually deflects the impetus of the agency which has facilitated – not only banks – but a whole cavalcade of industries to loot away.

            Its like Trump being the stench and not the rot behind decades of ideological [email protected] for fun and profit.

            You have a multivariate problem set that has lingering geopolitical ramifications and all you can do is bang on about banks whilst still clutching to some refuted econometric dogmas. You just keep attempting to drag everything back to banks when the advocacy behind neoliberalism was forwarded by groups and people with stuff like the Powell memo and that little link to the Koch think tank in shaping a social perspective and legal architecture which has enable it all.

            Your contention is none of it would not have happened if for not banks when banks were just a ends to a means or a reflection of the aforementioned.

          • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

            “My argument is they are not the core issue and the focus on them is a distraction from more important economic factors.”
            Geez Skip,…to quote what Smithy says to me all the time,…can’t you walk and chew gum at the same time?

            Having said that, 007s “Solution” to,…”neoliberalism”?, The concentration of wealth? Too higher house prices? Is probably not enough by itself. He seems to suggest with this public money thing he is always on about, that “new money creation” being put back into the hands of democratically elected Government that this will be a kind of cure all.
            I think that this will not be enough to achieve better economic outcomes by itself if the dominant economic narrative of Neoliberalism and monopoly capitalism remains unchallenged by a Plutocracy owned media and the political establishment.
            The Democratic power of the people can’t be wield effectively, to produce the best economic outcomes for the majority if they remain indoctrinated into an economic narrative that is guaranteed to weaken and disadvantage them and their children.
            This is where Skip is on the money,…Inspite of what ever family connections he/you reckon he has.

            Skip you say,

            “All of this is a legal proposition before it can even be used in the market, so pray tell how did it get or become legal in the first place.”
            I agree this should be the primary consideration, or at least a greater area of concern than just “Public money” by itself (sorry 007)
            But pray tell, what kind of Legal propositions would you advocate for to underpin our economic system?
            We get from you (in my opinion) very accurate and correct analysis of our current economic philosophical underpinnings and who really pulls the strings but what alternative actions, beyond people becoming better educated on matters economic, would you suggest people demand/take?
            Or is that out of your scope?

            PS I find my self agreeing with both of you on most issued and don’t see much you 2 actually disagree on other than a “hierarchy” of where to place primary concern.

          • Laws proceed everything in any society since time immortal.

            That said a whole supertanker of ideological chaff has been spewed for decades to dumb down and remove any unwanted debate about how societies might organize outside of markets markets markets always distribute and find the right price on everything under the illusion that gross human agency would be impossible to skew outcomes. Obviously things have worked out just the opposite as prophesied, but due to path dependency and overshoot with lots of butts on a limb, hence why some people are taking a powder because they just can’t be part of it any more and take time off for family et al.

            Personally I don’t think many country’s which went neoliberal have the government or institutional ability to change anything and the more the mopes get angry, it will be redirected at scapegoats for anger to be taken out on and then authorize more force against such outbursts, in the name of keeping property and income safe – which reinforces BSD capitals narrative – at the end of the day. Just look at those that forwarded the torie agenda and now covid rips off the Irish pennant of a band-aid off the whole thing. All due over a political lark IMO that succeeded where it was planned to fail, yet its more important to maintain the good economic managers narrative than it is to change course or go against past dogma because that would be admitting to the hoax and its ramifications.

            For myself I would rather face reality than concoct illusions just to assuage emotional feelings, I won’t be sucked in at any cost, my mind is too important as it dictates everything else I do and am responsible for.

          • I would only add pft that if you expect others to respect your mental or intellectual processes that you desist with the groundless insinuations that I’m some how environmentally conditioned by my fathers work as a “computer engineer” at BofA back in the late 60s early 70s of which he departed and never went back to that sector or my mothers employment as a CPA for C-corps of which she ended up leaving and never when back after a restructure done for internal political reasons and not business.

            All it did was give me the opportunity to observe various factors of the operations of these enterprises way before most and assisted me in my own experiences, let alone any studies I’ve had a look at and use that to reconcile everything.

            For some ridiculous reason I have this movie clip in mind – Back to School (1986) – Thornton Talks Business Scene


            But yeah like Adam Smith and old Galbraith said – banks …..

          • pfh007.comMEMBER


            “.. He seems to suggest with this public money thing he is always on about, that “new money creation” being put back into the hands of democratically elected Government that this will be a kind of cure all…”

            Cure all?

            As I noted I discuss lots of other economic issues all of which are important.

            If there is something you would like me to spend some more time on let me know.

            Banking and the public monetary system warrants specific attention because most people have difficulty in understanding how it works and it is clearly very important.

            Which is not surprising because of the amount of disinformation that has been spread by the banking sector for decades and continues to be spread.

            Most people have NO idea that banks create money and decide who gets it.

            Most people have very little idea how manipulating capital flows is how our trading partners maintain their manufacturing and other strategic industries.

            Ask around your next branch meeting who understands how the banking and monetary system works.

            100 years ago most branch members understood the importance of the issue.

          • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

            So other than priority of importance where do you and Skip actually disagree on the issue?
            Skip seems to agree with your proposition in general but doesn’t think it possible or relevant to achieve anything meaningful following said path without achieving other reform goals first.

            I depressing think that if we can’t radically reform Media ownership concentration then Democracy is lost

          • As I’ve noted EP neoliberalism first agenda was to shape public perception through ownership of institutions of information e.g. media, education, perception of self and its relationship with society in general, and as always how that was supposed too work out one day. Once that starts getting traction its self perpetuating and is what I’m talking about in shaping narratives where people internalize it and then promote it voluntarily.

            This is why I’ve constantly put those like Philip Mirowski under peoples nose so they can consider what was before and what changed, right down to the mind taxing granularity of some very heavy duty intellectual foundations, rather than simple dialectal reduction to meaninglessness.

            Pft and I disagree on some very fundamental aspects about humans before we even start talking about money, banks, politics, economics, or anything else. Most concerning is his approach to it all and how he thinks its all about selling and what devices are reasonable in advancing that prospective.

            I mean Greenspan of all people actually laid it all out in a congressional hearing to Ryan when he posed a question of how they were to keep the USD ‘sound’ [tm]. Ryan was completely headfked because he had believed the ideological preposition that he was indoctrinated in – you could see the gears in his head just grinding all gears. This is also why I use the term unwashed or its ilk because of its anthropological relevance. Congress is the writer of laws and has the right and responsibility to action them, drama is most of them are incentivized not too, this is what Greenspan was saying and sorta punting the foot ball back at them and Ryan – the look on all their faces ….

            Sweeper and myself have noted that what Pfts camp is trying to achieve is a non political solution to a political problem, because of ideological tripwires and hang ups, of which, the implantation is quite anti democratic in administration IMO. This is highlighted by the occasion above, politicians in both camps aside a few don’t want the responsibility of office and hive it off on the FED or some other institution – think tank – or private sector experts.

        • Jumping jack flash

          “First rule of Banker club is never talk about Banker club.”

          And never draw attention to the interest unless it is preceded by the words “rate cut”.
          Interest is the banks’ dirty little secret.

          It must be paid though. And our yearly interest bill is around 100 billion at present.

    • I find it curious that so many, over as many years, completely denied corporatism/neoliberalism with some variant of Ordoliberalism front running any political system and defended the whole charade of …. cough markets in the binary supply and demand setting. In fact most were more consumed with hippy punching, zomg boat people criminals, and anyone not pushing for more market efficiency as socialist commies.

      This is apparent as some still think Sweden is a socialist country when in fact it has been a neoliberal launching point in northern Europe for some time, which dovetails quite nicely with some mobs Covid opinions IMO.

      Now as far as the RE factor of FIRE sector economics goes it important to remember this goes all the way back to Milton and the developer – bank lobby jumping the que to get government and via that institute itself as a corner stone to the economy, further Bernaysed with marketing of gifting liberty and freedom with a car in the garage. Additional dereg of financial and environmental oversight without any long term risk evaluation is just how the clown car rolls.

      I would remind that late vintage RMBS had like a 90%+ fail rate and the excuse was investors demanded the product and if one did not produce the product, some one else would, and eat your lunch, because markets.

    • But the real problem is, people like you Clive, wouldn’t go anywhere near politics, but these people would.

      Australian politics attracts greedy selfish egomaniacs and are fed, or starved, by big business including MSM.

      We need a revolution, but it’s not going to happen until we’ve lost everything worth fighting for.

      Theres one other way, and that’s replacing the Labor party with Independents.

      • Rudd had publicly written about his issues with Hayek and company and once in office was labeled a totalitarian, pink batts was a mess just like the Vic security episode because government used private contractors which subbed out the actual work and had about zero oversight. Something that has been slowly baked into the system over decades of memes about efficiencies – EMH and how the market functions now.

        Which is ridiculous because the people that crack a fat are the ones that helped enable the very things they are losing the plot about now e.g. get gov out of my life – help I need gov assistance … this private sector help sux …

        • Labor aren’t just incompetent skip, they’re corrupt and self serving.

          The party needs to go, or we’re losing our country.

          • Firstly labour did not start this and then it was reformed to third way, so this whole business [tm] of destroying the country is polemic when both are beholden to and dependent on post service life rafts by vested interests. Not to mention the whole process getting there is just a filter to remove any unwanted people and views from getting traction in the public sphere.

            PS pft will tell you its just a banking money problem.

            Its all just one big self licking ice cream cone that is self perpetuating.

    • Your instincts serve you well, Clive. Central planning via both the fiscal and monetary arms of State is de rigeur these days as governments attempt to manufacture desired outcomes.

      Capitalism, as originally defined, is occurring in pockets – ostensibly in areas the government considers not important to its objectives and therefore hasn’t yet intervened.

      The persistent references by the commentariat to ‘failure of capitalism’ are borne of ignorance of what is really going on i.e. the aforementioned intervention, not to mention a healthy dollop of cronyism, otherwise known as the Game of Mates.

      • The forces behind the Powell memo is not some sort of command control over society – ???? – I mean by what authority do they claim power to choose how things are or are not. Who do you think gives the politicians their marching orders …. voters … shezzz …

          • Nothing shocking about it Dominic, can easily compare it to the methodology used by early western pagan kings and lords embracing non traditional religion because it consolidated their power over others, all ex ante like, can’t argue with divinity of singularity.

            Best bit is the money deployed was through government expenditure during the previous war to return things to their preconceived notion of natural order, no debate, no vote, no evidence to support, you know sorta like your mobs M.O.

    • Yeah, Clive that’s it.
      The imposed mass Third World immigration of the past 20 years.
      The root cause of the economic problems today and huge societal problems of the future – the discussion is not permitted, just social engineering propaganda from sunrise to sunset.

  2. Do not conflate CBD shoeboxes # with proper dwellings/houses where people want to live and are ready to pay for it

      • pfh007.comMEMBER

        If that were true those inner city high rise skyboxes would not stay empty. There is a reason why the rents for those flats fall by a larger amount but rents elsewhere are not moving or not moving much.

      • No they don’t. Many will just stay with mum and dad, or rent and not commit to a shoebox longer term.

        I’m with dam on this one. Apartments may struggle, but demand for a freestanding home has never been greater.

    • As I always say — there is practically a limitless supply of dogboxes.

      Homes on land in the city – not so much.

      The price ‘spread’ between the two is way too tight, IMO.

  3. … and the looming massive office space glut … and CBD flight …


    APS managers won over by working from home … Judy Skatssoon …(Australian) Government News

    A survey of more than 6,000 Australian Public Service employees, including nearly 1,400 managers, has found that working from home has been an ‘overwhelmingly positive’ experience.

    The study suggests that making employees go back to the office full time could erode some significant gains, researchers say.

    They outline their findings in a report titled Working during the Pandemic: From Resistance to revolution.

    The report found that managers were highly supportive of working from home, representing a major mindset shift. … read more via hyperlink above …
    Working during the Pandemic:: From resistance to revolution? … University of New South Wales (Canberra) pdf
    (google search title if url below fails) – Working From Home Report_Final (1).pdf

    • None of the positive criteria is what matters.

      Remembering why governments and big business llloooovvvveeee immigration.

      Employees will be required to go back to work IMO.

      • Public servants have already been told to go back, apparently because won’t someone think of the cafes.

        • Oh yeah? I reckon they’ll also use their muscle to coerce business that aren’t already wanting to do it for their own purposes.

          You wouldn’t believe how many people I’ve seen who have made life changing decisions moving regional based on this blip in time.

          Nothing wrong with regional, I personally love it, but these people think they’re continuing to earn $180k not going to work.

          Not happening.

          Meanwhile prices have sky-rocketed in some regional areas.

          • Agreed, I’m hearing all sorts of pressure on employees of mid tier financial firms to get back to the office 4+ days per week. Nothing from the big banks yet (they all seem to to differing to ‘see what happens in 2021’) but given their own huge office foot prints, their lending exposure to the commercial office markets and the surrounding SME’s those offices support, It won’t be too long before the banks start pushing large portions of their workforce back to the CBD as well.

            I have always advocated for a return to work via a hybrid model, an extension if you will of the existing work from home mantra on the basis that COVID proved it could work for 3 days a week not just 1. Pushing for full time WFH is a pipe dream IMO and pushing it too hard, in this employment environment simply encourages employers to offer a take it or leave it proposition.

          • This was always going to happen. Yep, I agree the banks will also join in.

            I wish I could short premium regional property.

          • The city dwellers who on a whim have decided a move to regional is for them will likely bail in short order. Once they accept that 1 acre of grass doesn’t mow itself, that shops shut at 4:30 and there is no meal delivery service the quant notion of country living will fail rapidly.

            I am tipping their will be lots of over capitalisation in regional areas which will be hard to claw back once the “need” for architectural designs fades with the desires of the people who spent big to build them.

    • Of course the APS want to work from home. 90% of their jobs are complete BS and circle jerking, why get out of bed so you can perform the work pantomime around the office water cooler between gaps in your diversity training schedule when you could easily keep up the charade by popping off a few emails while watching the tele in bed at 11am. Real work has real and tangible outcomes at the end of each day, this work requires people to get out of bed and perform a task that has a quantifiable outcome and a sense of achievement.

      Let them pretend to work from home but pay them solely on commission based on their actual productivity and profit. See how much they love it then.

  4. Keep in mind these are new dwelling only. There is a lot of units held by foreigners that may need to off load. I can only imagine the the worry for these investors would be the huge strata costs bleeding them dry while the cant rent the unit while hoping the AUD stay stable and strong.

    • Arthur Schopenhauer

      That’s prime investor territory.

      Walked around the Austin Hospital the other day. Lots of for lease signs on established apartments. Two minutes from the hospital, in the ideal position for Registrars and Nurses.

    • Mike Herman TroutMEMBER

      I’m bayside Melbourne, the number of for lease signs particularly through Elwood and st Kilda east was incredible in the first few months of COVID. To my eye it looks as though it has lightened off. What I have noticed is that the leased sticker stays on the board for a very very long time. Those increased numbers online versus what I’m seeing on the ground could mean the real estate agents aren’t putting boards up… wouldn’t surprise me…. I am also seeing an increase in “expressions of interest” boards around Brighton…

        • Display NameMEMBER

          No, Its “off market”. More RE hyperbole to try and make the prospective buyer feel special before their blood is drained.

          • Arthur Schopenhauer

            If you’re super special, our local agent sends an “Off Market” email every Wednesday morning. 😉

        • This just hit me too after a pondering….4500 signs is a lot to produce, how many does a normal agent keep out back? What the lead time on a vacancy billboard? Would a random agent spend $1000s on signage?
          What if I start up a vacancy signage business? Or a business to turn the taps on once a week? Money to be made!

  5. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    From Clive above,

    “And isn’t that the model of an authoritarian state where those who can least afford it pay for the collapse of a system that is not actually ‘capitalist’ or ‘free enterprise’ but the consequence of a state interfering in the market and manipulating it to benefit the political donor class?”

    Unfettered laissez-faire capitalism will always produce large dominant monopolies that concentrate wealth and crush “Real markets”
    All this anti government involvement in the economy is promoted by the private tyrannies of Global corporate Plutocracy.
    Invested rights agreements (Free trade agreements) are negotiated and written behind closed doors and design to circumvent democratic challenge from elected national governments.
    The problem isn’t the democratically elected governments themselves the problem is those who have undemocratically taken them over with wealth money an power that today exceeds the power of the state.

    • It’s the money -> influence -> politics -> governance -> money

      This is the dynamic loop that needs breaking in a democracy to prevent the corruption in the system we now find ourselves with. How to do it is the big question, I can’t think of any examples in history that didn’t involve violence, lots and lots of violence.

    • “Unfettered laissez-faire capitalism will always produce large dominant monopolies ”

      Nope. The opposite. Monopolies are mostly the product of Govt intervention i.e. regulations that prevent smaller competitors from growing and competing with the dominant players. Also, subsidies, tax-breaks and other favours granted to dominant players but not available to the little guy.

      There are dominant positions in the free market: like Coca Cola, where no competitor has been able to produce a superior product, but the opportunity to do so still exists. Google too.

    • Good article thanks Arthur. Domain press has been interesting lately. This paints a picture for inner Sydney

      “Because there are so many vacancies, a lot of agencies are doing open inspections through the week and especially at weekends, so the lifts are busy,” he said. “There are so many agents around trying to let apartments now, that sometimes we find ourselves having to queue for the lifts then.”