Tim Reardon

One part gin, three parts economics.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@peter_tulip @PhilipThalis To be fair, the GST was introduced then and it is added to new homes and not established. Maybe he was right but for the wrong reason!

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@Mark_Graph @AvidCommentator This can be true, but the 1.2 million homes is more: "we will put a man on the moon" statement that helps calibrate three tiers of govern't to understand the scale of the problem/ambition. It also prevents having to explain why demand for housing isn't popn growth divided by 2.5.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@PeteWargent Stamp duty is one of the most inequitable and inefficient taxes. There are lots of ways to abolish it and replace it with more efficient taxes.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@JohnWake This graph shows that if when there is an undersupply, the most solvent customer is the last to be forced from the market. Investor participation is a symptom, not the cause, of the housing shortage.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@nusnus @Mark_Graph

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@nusnus @Mark_Graph

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@nusnus @Mark_Graph

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@LouiChristopher @TheKouk For those that don't posses the ability to read a report, Australia needs around 100k homes, with 0% population growth, and 2% GDP/wealth. Then assume around 2.2 people per new home, and you'll be in the ball park. Let them live in homes.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@LouiChristopher @TheKouk A back-of-the-envelope estimate is useful if it gets you close to the right answer. We still have politicians that think we have 1m vacant homes. Bad advice leads to bad policy outcomes. Its explained here: https://t.co/UqwNeCjMx2

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@TheKouk Some of the errors in this logic are: Aust doesn't start from equilibrium. Homes are demolished. Household size changes and is lower in new homes. A healthy market requires short term rentals. The number of homes required to for popn growth is not the build rate reqd.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@BConn39 @TheKouk Yes, because the math compared houses in Australia with apartments in other countries. To that extent it is true, Sydney has detached houses smaller than the detached houses of Cairo. But that isn't helpful data.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@LouiChristopher @TheKouk For years I have worked with state/local govt to improve housing demand forecasts. It is not simply population growth divided by 2.5. Seeing this reappear in public debate is frustrating because it is part of the reason we under supplied housing.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@LouiChristopher @TheKouk This is the sort math that gave us a housing shortage. For years, planners assumed demand was simply popn growth divided by household size. Demand is driven by household formation, demographics, ageing, demolitions and changing preferences, etc. Why repeat a myth?

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

If 170k was sufficient homes for 420k pop'n growth then we should expect: vacancy rates/rents/over crowding/homelessness to be stable. Instead we have vacancy rates at record lows and rents rising to record rates. The market itself is telling us that 170,000 homes is not enough.

[Stephen Koukoulas @TheKouk]

The number is 2.42.
Based on the updated number of dwellings and an estimate of population for end March, there are 2.42 people per dwelling in Australia

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@TheKouk @LouiChristopher That's a measure of population growth demand, not building requirements. It ignores demolitions, declining household size, vacancy rates, suppressed household formation, etc. If 170k homes was enough why are rents so high? Let them live in houses.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@peter_tulip They have moved to arguing that we are building enough homes for our current population growth rate. They know this is wrong, but why they are aiming for policies that make affordability worse isn't clear to me?

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@peter_tulip @Mark_Graph That and, approvals aren't a good measure of homes completed.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@TheKouk This. And the price of land will rise two or three times as fast as labour and materials, see chart below. This means housing supply remains constrained, demand strong (assuming low unemployment) and prices will rise, with time.

[Tim Reardon @TimReardon2]

@TheKouk This. And the price of land will rise two or three times as fast as labour and materials, see chart below. This means housing supply remains constrained, demand strong (assuming low unemployment) and prices will rise, with time.