New data has revealed the income needed to buy a home in South Australia.

And it’s more than double what you needed five years ago.

An investigation by Canstar shows to buy a median-priced home in SA – one costing $827,000 – you need to earn $154,500.

To buy a median-priced unit – $570,000 – you need to earn $106,480.

In 2020, when the median house price was $482,000 you needed to earn just $64,469 in order to avoid mortgage stress.

SIGN UP NOW FOR OUR FREE REAL ESTATE NEWSLETTER

That represents an increase of $90,020.

It’s a similar story for units. In 2020, you needed to earn just $44,139 to buy a median-priced unit at $330,000 – some $20,000 less than you need now.

According to Payscale.com the average SA salary now is $74,000. In 2020 it was $67,844 – just $6156 less.

This shows the growth in income needed to buy has clearly outpaced wage growth during that period.

Canstar director of research Sally Tindall. Picture: Supplied

Canstar director of research Sally Tindall said prices had gone through the roof since Covid.

“It is astonishing to see just what kind of income is required to get a foot on the property ladder these days,” she said.

“My concern is that this is shutting people out.

“It creates this divide between those already in the property market and those that are struggling to land a foot on the property ladder.”

MORE NEWS:

How multiple renos transformed dated home

How to cut your CBD parking costs

The suburb becoming the next Unley Park

Where the latest rate cut makes it cheaper to own than rent in SA

She said part of what was fuelling the incredible rise in property prices was the burgeoning amount of equity upgraders had behind them to channel into their next purchases.

“It’s not an even playing field,” she said.

“Very few people have had the kind of pay rises needed to keep pace with the market. For most people, the only way they’ve kept up is because they already own property. Success breeds success.”

Professor Emma Baker of the University of Adelaide. Picture: Supplied

Professor Emma Baker from the University of Adelaide said it would be the worst possible outcome for a person to wedge themselves into a housing market they couldn’t afford to be in.

“Sometimes it’s just not the right time to buy into the market,” she said.

MORE NEWS

SA’s 15 surprise buyer’s markets revealed

Where SA sellers are making bank … and where they are taking a hit

SA agent crowned best in nation

Star performer recognised in historic industry first

“It’s so unfair that the current generation doesn’t have the ease that their grandparents had to just go in with a very average salary and get quite a nice house.”

“There’s never going to be one solution to housing affordability – it’s going to a whole pile of different things all kind of operating at the same time.”

University of Adelaide student Grace Hullah has concerns she might not ever be able to enter the housing market. Picture Mark Brake

University student Grace Hullah, 28, who is in her final year of a postgraduate law degree, said she finds the situation rather daunting.

“I sometimes I feel a bit hopeless about the whole situation because that is nowhere near my, or any of my friend’s salaries at the moment because we’re just starting our careers,” she said.

“Now is the time that we’re looking for the most stability, but we are at the most risk of not being able to afford anything, really.

“A lot of people I know have made peace with the fact that it might not ever happen.”

– with Aidan Devine

The post The astonishing amount you need to earn to afford a home in SA appeared first on realestate.com.au.

Will Friday’s jobs report compel Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to cut rates by 1%, as President Trump suggested on social media today? The answer is no. While the labor market is showing signs of cooling and there are some indications of stress in certain sectors of the economy, today’s report, although it exceeded estimates, reflected a negative revision of 95,000 jobs for the prior two months.

This data does not indicate enough labor market stress for the Federal Reserve to consider cutting rates at this time.

Unemployment rate unchanged

From the BLS: “Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 139,000 in May, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment continued to trend up in health care, leisure and hospitality, and social assistance. The federal government continued to lose jobs.”

President Trump has been hounding Powell to cuts rate for some time now. Today, Trump posted: “Powell Should Cut Rates, Rates Should be Cut By A Full Point. ‘Too Late’ at the Fed a Disaster, Go for a Full point!” President Trump wants the Fed to get ahead of the curve, not fall behind. However, last month I talked about how I believe the Fed would be using phone calls to inform their policy on cutting rates and today we got more confirmation on this from Cincinnati Fed President Beth Hammack.

The New York Times reported today that Hammack has been talking to business leaders and although they feel nervous, she hasn’t heard about significant plans to lay off employees. The story says “She prefers to ‘wait and move quickly to play catch-up’ on policy moves. ‘I legitimately do not know which way this is going to break.’” (The company Procter & Gamble, which is headquartered in Hammack’s district, announced layoffs of 7,000 employees yesterday.)

My main point is that the Fed needs to see a significant decline in the labor market before they will adopt a more dovish stance and cut rates. Despite the negative revision of 95,000 jobs in prior reports, the labor market isn’t deteriorating enough for them to become more dovish yet.

Residential construction workers

Friday’s BLS report noted that residential construction workers faced two negative labor prints, which is an essential consideration in my examination of economic cycles. However, it is encouraging to see that the report not only indicated growth but also included positive revisions to the prior month’s net loss figures. This suggests that the labor recession indicator is showing resilience; while it may be softening, it has not fallen apart as seen in previous cycles.

As you can see in the chart below, this data line has been very key to my economic work for a reason. The gray bars are recessions and this labor sector tends to break before we go into a recession.

Layoffs of federal workers

This report acknowledges that there has been a decline in government jobs, affecting federal workers since the beginning of the year. While this figure is significant, especially given the slow growth in this sector over the years, consider the broader context. Currently, we have over 162 million individuals in the workforce, which provides us with a diverse labor pool. Still, the growth of government employment may face limitations in the future.

Unemployment rate data

If we observe a slight increase of 0.06% in the unemployment rate data, we would have reported a 4.3% unemployment rate today, rather than the current 4.2%. This adjustment reflects a more precise value of approximately 4.244%. Such a rate would mark the highest level since October 2021, when it reached 4.5%.

If the unemployment rate starts to rise more than this level,  it will make the Fed’s position on not cutting rates more challenging. Some Fed presidents have even adjusted their unemployment rate targets due to the impact of the so-called “Godzilla tariffs.” The onus is now on them to address these developments in light of their previous stance from last year.

It’s also important to consider that as labor supply continues to slow, fewer individuals are actively seeking work, which could result in a lower unemployment rate compared to last year, when job seekers were more plentiful. Therefore, any further rise in the unemployment rate at this juncture may serve as an additional indicator of a challenging labor market.

Conclusion

Today’s report wasn’t a big game-changer for the Fed, but it does highlight the risk that any economic shocks can make the labor data get weaker and bring the unemployment rate higher than they would like. In general, the Fed has taken a stance on waiting to see what the tariffs will do to the economy, but this is similar to what they have always been saying: they want to see more labor damage before they get more dovish.

Remember, the only reason they cut rates by 1% last year was because the labor data was getting much softer on them and they didn’t want their policy to be too restrictive. Now, it’s a waiting game for rate cuts. The question is: will they be too late on cutting rates again?

The leaders seated earlier this year in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are reportedly planning new time limits and work requirements for recipients of the department’s existing rental assistance programs, according to an internal document viewed by NPR.

The document reportedly reveals that HUD is planning on limiting the amount of time that people can get federal rent subsidies for, in addition to the work requirements, which experts warn could cause disruptions to the rental market.

One representative of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — a conservative-leaning think tank — told NPR that such limits should not be imposed “in a vacuum,” but instead should include fixed rent and automatic savings accounts to offer beneficiaries upward mobility.

Only a small number of public housing authorities currently have the ability to implement such limits. According to the report, of the 3,300 housing authorities active nationwide, less than 140 have the ability to impose these requirements at all, and the number that have actually implemented them is far smaller.

Only 40 or so have tried either time limits or work requirements, while roughly 20 have tried both, according to an NPR interview with Joshua Meehan, president of the Moving to Work Collaborative, which advocates on behalf of this smaller group.

But HUD is reportedly drafting a rule that would significantly expand the number of housing authorities that could choose to impose the requirements. The rule would not require congressional authorization.

In a guest essay published by The New York Times last month, HUD Secretary Scott Turner joined with the secretaries of the departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as the administrator for the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services, to describe their philosophy.

Turner, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Brooke Rollins and Mehmet Oz described in the essay their combined effort to “require able-bodied adults (defined as adults who have not been certified as physically or mentally unfit to work), with some exceptions, to get jobs and [are] calling on Congress to enact common-sense reforms into law.”

Turner has long lamented the nature of U.S. welfare programs and actively worked against them during his time as a state legislator in Texas. He also described his dim view of government assistance programs for the poor and unhoused during his time as an active pastor.

A HUD spokesperson neither confirmed nor denied the plan’s details to NPR. But they did say that some of the discussed two-year time limits in the president’s May budget proposal would “be immensely helpful to empower families and individuals to achieve self-sufficiency and economic independence.”

The intense competition across U.S. regional housing markets have already served to push many potential beneficiaries out of these HUD programs, which were already highly competitive since they are not entitlement programs.

Time limits in particular could push more people out, according to a HUD employee who requested anonymity when speaking to NPR. There could also be market ripple effects, the source said.

“Private investors and lenders would not invest in much needed affordable housing development due to the high turnover and vacancies that would come from a two-year term limit,” the person told NPR. “Ultimately, this proposal would result in increases in street homelessness in communities across the country.”

Get all caught up on the National Association of Realtors Legislative Meetings, including Thursday’s votes on the no-commingling and hate speech policies.

A group of 14 Democratic senators, led by Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), have called on Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte to pause any potential plans to release government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from conservatorship.

The letter, first reported by Bloomberg, said that any potential plans need to be presented to Congress in a briefing before they’re pursued. Rushing the process, the senators said, could have adverse impacts on the mortgage market including through higher interest rates and benefits to wealthier investors as opposed to ordinary homebuyers.

“Hasty and poorly planned changes to the Enterprises could dramatically increase costs for families seeking to purchase a home, rewarding President Trump’s billionaire campaign contributors while making the housing crisis even worse,” the senators wrote, according to the report.

FHFA did not respond to the outlet’s comment request.

Discussions about releasing the GSEs have ramped up significantly over the past two weeks.

While Pulte in the past indicated that FHFA and the administration might not prioritize a release in order to fully assess the potential mortgage market impacts, he has also consistently said the ultimate decision lies with President Donald Trump.

Late last month, Trump indicated in a social media post that he would work on “taking these amazing companies public” with an implicit guarantee.

Other recent reporting has indicated that the Trump administration has studied the possibility of turning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into public companies while keeping them under conservatorship as officials assess what best aligns with their budget deficit reduction goals. Pulte floated this idea in some recent media interviews.

In a public appearance last month, Pulte reiterated the president’s final decision-making authority over GSE conservatorship. But he also labeled the companies as “obese” while sharing more of his thinking behind the controversial shakeup of their governing boards.

Last week, Pulte called on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates, a day before the president made his social media declaration regarding conservatorship.