# Gone are the days when a ‘good job’ gets you a house – and now we have the data to prove it

Remember Joe Hockey’s claim 10 years ago? We put it to the test and guess what: even after a decade of saving, you still wouldn’t have enough for a deposit.

A decade ago, the then treasurer, Joe Hockey, told Australians that if they wanted to buy a house, the first thing they should do is . But new research from the Australia Institute shows that even a good job is no longer enough to afford to buy a home.

The latest  out on Tuesday suggested that prices in Sydney and Melbourne over the past year have moderated, while in Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth the boom times continue.



For many, though, regardless of what the figures say, the idea of being able to afford a house is so far beyond reality that they might as well envisage buying a place in a neighbourhood of hobbits.

Too often the difficulty is rendered in abstract terms, but the Australia Institute (where I am the chief economist) can now reveal just how cruel things are – and have been for many years.

When Hockey made the infamous comments in 2015 . But it’s worth actually testing his claim, since, as a colleague pointed out, surely the cost of buying a house has gone up much faster than incomes.

Of course, she was right – over the past decade the median house price has gone up by more than the average male full-time earnings in each state (except the Northern Territory, where the end of the investment mining boom had an abnormal impact):



So what if someone with a “good job” had taken Hockey at his word?

Jobs paying the male average full-time earnings are pretty damn good. At the moment  $112,819 per year **–** **more than the earnings of about 80% of taxpayers.** So doing OK.

Let us assume for the sake of being optimistic that in 2015, on hearing Hockey’s words, you were living in Sydney on the average male full-time earnings.

Back then this was $88,624. Nice. But you still have to pay tax. After tax (and I am not including the Medicare levy) you have $67,886. Still good.

So how much to save for a house? The standard line is 20%. But that is 20% saving for everything – holidays, special things. Also let’s be realistic – that’s a hard ask in the Sydney rental market. Let’s make it 15% but all of it is going towards a house deposit and for ease let’s deposit a new amount every six months.

So, in June 2015 you deposit $5,091 and in December 2015 you deposit another $5,111 – because under this scenario every six months you also get a pay rise as full-time earnings go up.

You are also earning interest and have made $73 interest on that first deposit.

Congratulations: after one year you have saved $10,275 towards your deposit.

But maybe don’t pop the champagne just yet.

At the end of 2014, when you first started thinking about saving for a home, the median house price in Sydney was about $773,000, so a 20% deposit would be $154,600.

A year later, I am sorry to tell you, house prices have jumped a bit. The median house price in Sydney in the last half of 2015 was $901,600. So now you need $180,320 for that deposit.

Even though you have saved $10,275, you are now further away from your goal than you were when you started out.

But surely things will improve?

Alas no.

By the end of 2024, a decade after starting, you have saved up $126,096. Not only are you still not at your original goal, you are $155,404 behind the $281,500 deposit you now need to buy a median-priced house in Sydney:



So after a decade of saving you have gone from needing $154,600 to needing an extra $155,404.

You just never catch up:



It’s important to note that this was not always the case.

If you began saving under the same situation in 1987, you would have reached your goal within nine years:



Yes, things have changed – more women work now, so dual incomes are more common. But have you checked out childcare prices lately?

Yes, this is Sydney, where things are extreme – but in no city except Darwin would you have saved enough for a deposit yet.



Each time you think you are getting close, the housing market takes off again.

Clearly the market is broken. If someone on an** income better than 80% of Australians is unable to save for a median-priced house, then something is very, very wrong.

Our tax system has been working to reduce housing affordability since 1999, when John Howard and Peter Costello changed  so that it combined with negative gearing to incentivise investment.

We also clearly need to change how we treat renters – lifetime leases (or at the very least minimum lengths) need to be in the policy mix.

But what did Hockey have to say?

Well, four months after making this claim, he left parliament and in his final speech  that “negative gearing should be skewed towards new housing so that there is an incentive to add to the housing stock rather than an incentive to speculate on existing property”.

A decade later, we are heading into an election where neither major party proposes such changes. Instead, we can only assume they are content with sentencing young Australians to saving forever for a deposit that they’ll never actually reach.

*Greg Jericho is a Guardian columnist and policy director at the Centre for Future Work*

## More on this story
* 
  * 3d ago
* 
  * 2d ago
* 
  * 2d ago
* 
  * 8 Mar 2025
* 
  * 3d ago
* 
  * 8 Mar 2025
* 
  * 3 Mar 2025
* 
  * 3d ago
* 
  * 27 Feb 2025
* 
  * 4d ago
```