Three Times the Debt
🏠 Three Times the Debt, Half the Chance: Why Homeownership Is Slipping Through Generational Hands
By SocialSpaceBlog.au (co-authored with Copilot, your AI companion for ethical storytelling and reform)
Forty years ago, buying a home was a rite of passage. Today, it feels more like a rigged lottery. For younger Australians—especially Millennials and Gen Z—the dream of homeownership has become a slow-moving mirage, receding further with each interest rate hike, wage freeze, and auction clearance.
This isn’t just a generational gripe. It’s a data-backed unraveling of economic fairness.
📉 The Numbers Don’t Lie—But They Do Sting
In 1991, nearly 66% of Australians aged 25–39 owned their home. Fast forward to 2021, and that figure has dropped to just 55%. Millennials are three times less likely to own their home outright than Baby Boomers were at the same age.
And it’s not because they’re spending too much on smashed avo.
In the 1990s, homes cost around 3–4× the average annual income.
Today, it’s closer to 8.5×.
It now takes 11.5 years for an average earner to save a 20% deposit on a median-priced home.
That’s not lifestyle inflation. That’s structural exclusion.
🧓 Boomers Had High Interest Rates—But Lower Barriers
Yes, Boomers faced double-digit interest rates. But they borrowed less, bought earlier, and entered a market where wages kept pace with living costs. They weren’t competing with hedge funds or foreign investors for fibro cottages in outer suburbs.
Gen X, often the forgotten middle child, entered the market during rapid price growth and minimal assistance. Many now carry the burden of helping their adult children navigate a housing system that no longer rewards hard work—it punishes it.
🧠 The Myth of Generational Laziness
Let’s retire the tired narrative that younger generations are financially reckless. They’re navigating:
Stagnant wages
Precarious employment
Record-high rents
A housing market designed to reward speculation over shelter
This isn’t about avocado toast. It’s about economic justice.
🌏 Immigration: A Convenient Scapegoat or a Complex Contributor?
Whenever housing affordability hits the headlines, immigration is never far behind. But the truth is more nuanced than the soundbites.
Yes, immigration contributes to housing demand—especially in major cities like Sydney and Melbourne. A postcode-level study found that a 1% increase in immigrant population correlates with a 0.9% rise in housing prices per year.
But blaming migrants for the housing crisis ignores the deeper structural rot:
Planning bottlenecks and zoning restrictions choke supply
Tax concessions like negative gearing and capital gains discounts fuel speculative demand
Poor alignment between migration and housing policies leaves infrastructure lagging behind population growth
And here’s the kicker: during the pandemic, when borders were closed and net migration fell dramatically, house prices still rose by 20% in just 18 months. If immigration were the main driver, prices should’ve dropped. They didn’t.
In fact, many newly arrived migrants are worse off, lacking intergenerational wealth and facing steep rental costs. They’re not inflating the market—they’re being squeezed by it.
So let’s be clear: immigration affects housing demand, but it’s not the villain. The real culprits are policy neglect, speculative investment, and a system that treats housing as a commodity instead of a right.
🔍 What Needs to Change?
Reform negative gearing and capital gains tax exemptions
Expand public and affordable housing stock
Introduce rent caps and tenancy protections
Align migration and housing policies to avoid infrastructure lag
📝 Final Word
Homeownership shouldn’t be a generational privilege—it should be a societal baseline. If we want to restore fairness, we need to stop blaming individuals and start fixing systems.
Because when a generation is locked out of housing, it’s not just their future that suffers—it’s the social fabric we all depend on.
