Experts divided: Cost-of-living crisis or housing havoc?
Finder's latest RBA Cash Rate report, which surveyed 34 experts and economists on future cash rate moves and other issues relating to the state of the economy, showed 88 per cent (30 out of 34) respondents believe the RBA will cut the cash rate tomorrow, bringing it down to 3.60 per cent.
On the topic of cost-of-living, almost half of experts (44 per cent) said they believed the crisis was over.
In comes as the amount Aussies are saving each month – $932 – reached an all-time high in June 2025, up from $614 in June 2023, according to data from Finder's Consumer Sentiment Tracker.
MORE NEWS
When is the next RBA rates meeting in 2025?
Shock salary you now need to buy a home
Little-known rule could save you $800
Finder's data shows mortgage stress is also at a two-year low – down to 34 per cent.
Despite higher average savings rates, Stella Huangfu from the University of Sydney noted that many were still doing it tough.
'Finder's research reveals that 43 per cent of respondents have less than $1000 in savings, and 18 per cent have no savings at all,' she said.
'Additionally, the cost of essential goods and services remains high.
'Experts predict that grocery prices are unlikely to decrease in 2025, and real household disposable income has declined by nearly 10 per cent since its peak, indicating that many Australians are still struggling to keep up with living expenses.'
Graham Cooke, head of consumer research at Finder, said while some Australians were gaining financial confidence, others were barely scraping by.
'Whether the cost of living crisis is over really depends on who you ask,' he said.
'While Finder's Cost of Living Pressure Gauge shows that cost pressures are easing, rents are still sky-high and relief is being more directly felt by homeowners.
'The property class divide in Australia is widening.'
However, Jakob Madsen from The University of Western Australia said the crisis was not as large as many believe.
'I think the so-called cost-of-living crisis is blown up and clearly not of the scale we saw in the 1970s and 1980s,' he said.
'Most remuneration is indexed to consumer prices, so the standard of living has not changed much.
'The exception is some rentiers and new entrants into the housing market have experienced marked increasing costs. But this is all caused by the escalation of house prices, not a general increase in the real value of pensions and wages.'
Kyle Rodda from Capital.com said the cost-of-living crisis was basically a housing crisis.
'If you rent, things are tough. If you are leveraged to your eyeballs on your home, things are tough.
'Given the housing problem is supply driven and there's not much being done to address that, then the 'crisis' is likely to continue.'
Adj Prof Noel Whittaker from QUT pointed to a growing wealth divide.
'We are living in very much a two-tier society, and the gaps between the haves and the have-nots appear to be widening,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Dimitri Burshtein & Peter Swan: If RBA slashes rates this month, it will be giving in to political pressure
It may be heresy to say, but the case for an official interest rate cut at the coming RBA monetary policy board meeting is exceptionally weak. Austrian born economist Friedrich Hayek once observed that 'the root and source of all monetary evil is the government's monopoly on money.' In Australia, that monopoly takes form in the RBA — an institution notionally independent, but increasingly susceptible to political pressure. Following recent data which showed inflation remaining within and not below the RBA's target band, the usual chorus of economic commentators and political actors have launched into a ritualistic call for a rate cut. And as the August 2025 Monetary Policy Board meeting approaches, these calls are growing in both volume and vehemence. For the RBA to heed these demands would not simply be an error but it would represent a further descent from a disciplined monetary authority into a compliant servant of political convenience. The RBA's mandate is neither ambiguous nor advisory. It is enshrined in legislation: to ensure price stability, full employment, and the economic prosperity of the Australian people. Nowhere in the RBA Act is there an obligation to underwrite misguided fiscal policies or to provide political cover for governments unwilling to confront the consequences of their own policy malpractice. Yet that is precisely what a rate cut would amount to at this juncture. A backdoor bailout of bad fiscal and regulatory policy suppressing economic growth and productivity all under the guise of independent monetary policy. Evidence of persistent economic pressures across key sectors of the economy abound. These pressures are not being driven by private sector exuberance but by reckless fiscal expansion at all three levels of government. Governments have overstimulated demand while constricting supply through over-regulation, sky high energy costs, and an expanding public sector that absorbs available labour. In this context, a rate cut would simply exacerbate the underlying causes of Australia's economic malaise by further distorting the allocation of capital and labour, rewarding inefficiency while penalising prudence. There is equally no compelling case for monetary stimulus based on labour market data. Unemployment remains historically low. And while there are tentative signs of a slowdown in private sector hiring, the slack is being absorbed by growth in the public and care economy. If the RBA cuts rates now, it will not be reviving a flailing private sector. It will be validating a dangerous economic realignment: one that favours public consumption over private investment, short-term palliatives over structural reform, and ideological convenience over empirical rigour. Prevailing arguments for a rate cut are based in the flawed logic of the Phillips Curve — the mid-20th century economic model that posits a trade-off between unemployment and inflation. But the Phillips Curve has failed repeatedly. It failed to anticipate stagflation in the 1970s, failed to explain the low-unemployment, low-inflation paradox of the 2010s, and fails to grasp the unique drivers of today's price instability. Continuing to base policy on such a model is akin to navigating a storm with a broken compass. Real world outcomes have diverged too often from its predictions to treat it as a reliable guide. To make matters worse, Australia's currency has declined by more than 7 per cent over the past five years. In a country that imports the majority of its essential goods — from fuel to food, electronics to pharmaceuticals — a weaker dollar has a direct effect on household costs. A rate cut now would almost certainly further accelerate currency depreciation, amplifying imported inflation. This risk alone should give any responsible policymaker pause. Yet the calls for easing continue, not because the data demands it, but because habit, ideology, and political cowardice conspire to make it seem palatable. A rate cut in August would additionally punish savers, reward speculators, erode the purchasing power of the dollar, and send an unmistakable message that the RBA no longer takes its inflation target seriously. Worse, it would reinforce the delusion that the bank exists to smooth every bump in the economic road, regardless of whether that road was poorly built to begin with. This is not just an Australian phenomenon. Since the tenure of Alan Greenspan in the US, central banks around the world have morphed from guardians of price stability into crisis managers and economic nannies. The so-called 'Greenspan Put', the expectation that central banks will always ride to the rescue at the first sign of market discomfort has corrupted monetary policy, undermined fiscal discipline, and left global economies addicted to cheap credit. The result has been decades of asset bubbles, rising inequality, chronic debt dependence, and an institutional inability to endure even mild economic correction. Monetary policy must return to first principles: price stability first; everything else second. If the RBA hopes to preserve its credibility, its independence, and its very relevance, it must hold the line, ignore political pressure and not cut the official interest rate. Dimitri Burshtein is a principal at Eminence Advisory. Peter Swan AO is emeritus professor at the UNSW-Sydney Business School.
AU Financial Review
4 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
How Tasmania fits into the space race between Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk
Tasmanians will be the first Australians to stream movies using new low-orbit satellites from Amazon after the National Broadband Network chose US billionaire Jeff Bezos' fledgling network over rival Elon Musk's more established one. The contract to provide satellite-powered services to some 300,000 existing NBN Co customers in remote and regional areas starting in mid-2026 marks a win for Bezos as he competes with Musk and his Starlink network.
Sky News AU
5 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Kmart sued by Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association over alleged links to forced labour from China's Xinjiang region
Kmart is being sued in Federal Court to determine whether the retailer misled customers about its ethics claims and sourced some of its clothes from suppliers that allegedly used slave labour. Class-action law-firm Maurice Blackburn has filed a suit on behalf of the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association (AUTWA) against Kmart. The association wants the retailer to release documents that show what it knows about two suppliers with alleged links to factories in China's Xinjiang region. Kmart has rejected these claims. Human rights abuses in the area were the subject of a landmark report in 2022 where the United Nations recommended Beijing investigated allegations of human rights violations, 'including allegations of torture, sexual violence, ill-treatment, forced medical treatment, as well as forced labour and reports of deaths in custody'. It also called for the Chinese government to take 'prompt steps' to release all individuals arbitrarily imprisoned. The AUTWA is seeking the documents to determine whether Kmart has abided by its ethical sourcing procedures and if it misled consumers. Ramila Chanisheff, president of the AUTWA, said the association was 'demanding answers from Kmart' to determine whether the retailer's actions 'live up to its words'. 'Kmart, and all companies, must ensure they are not profiting from forced labour in China,' Ms Chanisheff said in a statement. 'China's mass imprisonment, repression and forced labour of Uyghur people is well-documented. 'Our community has lost family members, friends and loved ones because of China's brutal treatment of Uyghurs. 'Kmart is a go-to store for so many people in Australia. If the company has profited in any way from this sort of systematic repression, I am sure Australians would be horrified.' A Kmart spokesperson said the retailer was 'disappointed' by the court action and had invited AUTWA to meet and discuss the concerns on several occasions. 'Kmart has been in correspondence with the applicant's lawyers for over 12 months and has provided extensive details of our Ethical Sourcing Program,' the spokesperson said. The spokesperson noted Kmart has had its 'ethical sourcing program' in place for 15 years which helps the company identify and mitigate modern slavery risks across its supply chains. They noted the program takes from Kmart's 'ethical sourcing code' which adopts the standards under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Labour Organisation. 'Compliance with our Ethical Sourcing Code is required under our contracts with our Suppliers,' the spokesperson said. 'Suppliers in the Kmart Ethical Sourcing Program are regularly monitored through activities including our site visits, audit programs and investigations if we receive any reports or complaints of concern.' AUTWA is also represented by the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) alongside Maurice Blackburn. HRLC's associate legal director Freya Dinshaw said 'alarm bells' had been 'ringing for a long time' about the risk of forced labour being used in the Chinese garment sector. 'This court case is about Kmart coming clean on whether it is really doing everything it claims to be doing to ensure that its products are slavery-free,' Ms Dinshaw said in a statement. She stressed the case was also an opportunity to highlight 'weaknesses' in Australia's modern slavery laws. 'It shouldn't be left to members of the public to take companies to court and force them to open their books where there are suspicions of links to modern slavery,' Ms Dinshaw said. 'Australian companies should be legally required to investigate and prevent forced labour in their supply chains and face hard consequences if they don't. 'Australia should also follow the example of other countries like Canada and the US and ban imported goods made with forced labour, so they don't end up on our shop shelves.' China rejected the claims in the UN's 2022 report. In August 2024, the UN said it has faced 'difficulties posed by limited access to information' with its investigations into the human rights abuses. It also noted many who spoke about the abuses with the UN had 'fear of reprisals'.
