My point isn't that housing costs as % of income can go arbitrarily high without any negative impacts, it's that the study/headline is misleading the reader using a definition of "unaffordable" that is inconsistent with their expectations. "Unaffordable" makes me think that the teachers are struggling to meet rent and have to cut non-discretionary spending to make ends meet, whereas the reality (ie. the 30% mark used by the study) is closer to "have less discretionary spending than wanted".
Those marks are still used in many places to deny would-be renters a place as they are deemed 'insecure' by the landlords. At that point, it is effectively "unaffordable" as the supply is artificially staggered and the minimum to enter is higher than the market would dictate otherwise. Most could make it work and still have room to spare. This includes countries with safety nets capable of bailing out individuals who mess up.
Might not be the case in Australia, but it certainly exists.
