Home ownership rates have fallen to their lowest level in almost 70 years and it is becoming much less common for younger people to own their homes.
A new report by Statistics NZ, Housing in Aotearoa: 2020, shows home ownership peaked at 74% in the 1990s, but by 2018 had dropped to 65%.
The decline was particularly apparent for younger people, with home ownership rates for people aged 25-29 dropping from almost two-thirds to less than half since the early nineties.
In 1991, 61% of people aged 25-29 owned their own home, but by 2018 this had dropped to 44%.
Ownership rates have also fallen for people in their 30s, dropping from 79% in 1991 to 59% in 2018.
The decline in home ownership means a corresponding rise in households that are renting, with just under a third (32%) of households renting the home they live in, at the time of the 2018 Census.
This created pressures on incomes in main centres like Auckland and Wellington, where demand for housing was particularly strong.
"Price indexes show that rents have risen in line with incomes nationally, but have outstripped income growth in centres like Wellington and Auckland where markets are particularly competitive," Statistics NZ said.
"Households that rent spend, on average, a higher proportion of their income on housing costs than people living in owner-occupied homes."
The comment stream on this story is now closed.
156 Comments
Not a good look for NZ.
If you're young, it helps to have rich parents.
TTP
Great advice TTP, you're a crack-up at times :)
I am young.
I have rich parents. They own multiple properties.
Somehow I earn in the top 6% of wage earners in this country.
I have a masters degree in a well paying field.
I have net wealth 50% greater than the average in my age bracket.
Yet I can't buy a house in a decent area in this city. I have tried very hard and studied for longer than most to put myself in a position where I can fend for myself.
To then go and ask my parents for help when they've paid for private school tuition fees and are nearing retirement and should be in a position where their kids are self-reliant just because I've chosen to live in this overpriced city is something I consider to be a moral failing.
For our society to set the rules of the game in the way that it has so that people like me have to.... that is just... so dysfunctional and broken beyond belief.
I'm (and a decent chunk of the other young highly skilled people) just going to leave, earn more elsewhere and pay less for the house at the same time.
Nice. What a shitshow.
Diddums.
Try living in a big city in china where tiny apartments cost more than the ave akl house.
Why would someone try that?
You know we have reached an all time low when we have to compare ourselves to China to cheer us up!
Yet when it comes to rates rises the story is completely different, and there's an expectation of affordability. Surely the consistent response should be "Diddums".
Chinaman1.. Living in China is not an option for 99%+ kiwis. China has sensible regulations which prevent NZers living in China and no way can we buy a house there. I wouldn't mind spending a few months a year in Macau but am not even allowed to do that. China places the interests of their own citizens before migrants, which unfortunately is not the case in NZ.
A very articulate comment, which I appreciate. Now, where would you realistically go .. Australia .. the UK?
Australia is great, if you're an Australian. Otherwise, you're dependent on good fortune OR being bankrolled. Though Australians are the richest people in the Western World, their economic fortunes MIGHT be turning [4th turning lol]. Also, the UK is overrated.
Perhaps occupy yourself learning about our Jesuit Banking System. I recommend reading Rulers of Evil by Tupper Saussy - you can download the PDF. The Creature from Jekyll Island is good too, but it's a huge book .. at times a force read. Rulers of Evil is much better and truer.
To be fair, although I'll probably stay in the Anglosphere - comfort zone and language limitations and all that - everywhere else is cheaper relative to incomes.
Probably Aus, maybe the UK. My partner has a thing for Scotland... she's also a US citizen so that's an option if they're able to sort their politics out.
With regards to Aus it kinda boggles my mind that Sydney and Melbourne are cheaper than Auckland, both in nominal terms and before incomes are considered... bizarre...
Sort of, but Auckland delayed its housing boom during 2012-16 with super strict council restrictions and was only building housing about 30-50% (per capita) as fast as the Aussie cities. Then at end of 2016 Auckland doubled its land supply and freed up regulations around brown field - from then on our building rate took off. We are now hitting building rates similar to where Sydney was just before it stalled.
So it might just be that we are in the exact same cycle as Sydney/Melbourne, but with a delayed peak. A bog standard completely normal housing bubble, like Aussie was 2-3 years ago.
"Australia is great, if you're an Australian."
Australia is great for 600k+ kiwis too, even with the whole COVID-19 stuff happening there wasn't the boatload of expats returning home as one might think.
Most of us here are very well looked after, with medicare, family tax credits and 9% super. There's a lot that you will get in Aussie you won't get as a kiwi in NZ, the unfair treatment of kiwis here is highly exaggerated!
.
What do you mean by, "buy a house in a decent area"? Most of us had to buy our first houses in cheap parts of the city.
Where's a cheap part of Auckland?
christchurch
Commute not that bad from Auckland I guess
Stop it, I want to buy in ChCh next year .. stop sending them my way lol
If you have an exceptional income, then it's not an unreasonable expectation.
His point is that prices have become detached from such earthly concerns. No one pays for a house with income anymore -- just leverage from all your other properties.
(dp)
(dp)
(tp)
You could start by asking your parents why they need to own multiple properties...then convince them/their generation to stop voting for parties/policies that perpetuate the problem.
If my wife and I were your parents we would help you into a first home. We have helped both our children. One of them is only 31 and debt free on a second home worth $800k. The other will be debt free when she upgrades to her second home. We see no point in us having more capital and income than we need to live on now and have our children waiting for their inheritances. If we can help them now and see them and their children have an easier life with our help we get the pleasure of seeing that happen. Why would we have more than we need to live on and our children have large repayments on their houses. A win win all around. Our two children are both university qualified professionals and both work hard at their careers.
Buy and Hold
How come people who earn only the median wage which is far less than you, the top 6 percent, can buy homes for themselves and you can't. And you claim to have more wealth than others your age. You must have a bad credit rating or low net income after expenses or something weird.
When I say home I mean a stand alone home on a big enough section to have a herb garden. Apartments are not for me (I play the drums and I'd rather not annoy all my neighbours). Credit is fine. Net income is fine. Banks will lend me 600 - 700k which is you know, just not quite enough.
Here's a link to net worth by a bunch of different measures. Median net worth for 25 - 34 year olds is 26k...
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/household-net-worth-stat….
buyandhodl. look for a big 4 or 5 bedroom house and get a few flatmates. Bank will allow you to factor 80% of flatmate income which will increase the amount banks will lend you. Some monthly costs like power, wi fi, water etc are quartered as well. With the right flatmates you can socialise at home and save money there too. I'm guessing your parents can and will lend/give you sthg like 50K to $100K to get the deposit side of things up to bank requirements. It can even be a lot of fun. It was for me.
Buyandhodl ? Are you serious ? You need to get some budgeting advice. I was on average wage and managed to pay off a house, even when I was unemployed I managed to keep paying the mortgage. Bottom line is the house needs to be your number 1 priority, clearly if what you say is true then its simply not in your case. I'm really not feeling sorry for you. Its about compromise, you start with a shit house and get a couple of flatmates and move up from there. According to a TV item a couple of weeks back you need an individual net wealth of over $860K to be in the top 10% of New Zealanders. If someone who has never earned more than $60K in his life can get there then you can to.
Good on you for what you have done, but it's a false equivalence you are making, and is not the point to be agrued. It only worked for you because others didn't do it. If everyone did what you did, then the opportunity would not have existed to buy a shit house and get a couple of flatmates. If you didn't have that opportunity, could you have afforded to buy?
Just change the names out if there was a shortage of healthy food, and people complained about that. The argument is why is there not enough to begin with, and the efficiency of what is supplied.
There is a genuine shortage of good quality affordable homes. In fact, by definition, we have no affordable housing in NZ. If it wasn't for the fact the homeowners can, at the moment, find a greater fool to sell the property onto at a higher price than what they paid, there would be outrage at having to pay 100% more than you need to to buy a house.
You have over 1/2 the value of your house is made up of non-valued costs due to the rentier monopoly speculative system we operate under. The mortgage that you have been paying off over the years, could have been half the term if you had been able to buy it in a truly free market. Just think of what you could have done with all that extra money.
You now find yourself in the great position of owning a house, after a lot of sacrifices, it sounds like.. How would you feel now if the system was corrected and the waste is taken out of it, and your property reverted to its true valued-added price, ie half the price it is now? You, unfortunately, have little option but to agree to retain the status quo.
It's a dangerous game they play.....
The more that young people are sidelined on property ownership, the more there will be a gargantuan change to laws on property investment when their generation represents their views in parliament.
I expect FHB grants to be rolled out next year to try and keep some sort of equilibrium and votes..(for the ones that do vote, Ref Zack)
Labour are polling at 53% .. ALSO my generation doesn't vote .. you're imaginings are fantasies.
FHB grants are just a subsidy that will increase house prices .. in the medium to long term.
Well, having policy that effects your long term wellbeing would be a motivation to vote..
Grants will probably be on new builds only, get developers to fight for the sales. Could be a good thing for FHB's.
It'll likely just need the right mix of anger and motivation to get young people out to vote (or worse).
(Yes, FHB Grants are just more subisdising of investment property.)
Yes . . . Something need to be done.
Homeownership rates for 25 to 35 year olds fallen from 65% to 35% in past 30 years especially needs to be addressed.
No but house prices have to keep going up or we we have a severe recession or depression- Orr said so. You can’t have it both ways.
Wrong, house prices have to keep rising because according to Jacinda, that's what people "expect".
She's identified an entitlement mentality and young Kiwi workers and savers just need to respect that their wealth must be transferred to fill that entitlement.
IO
You know my position; current rate of rise is both unsustainable and poses a risk of significant correction and wider economic instability.
For the past five weeks or so I have been consistent on calling a flattish market for next year which is not only likely but also required. Don’t think RBNZ is going to ignore Robertson’s letter - Orr’s response is as expected to show an appearance of maintaining resemblance of RBNZ independence. However I expect RBNZ will look to some cooling of the market for stability reasons and LVRs is an example of that (and there is good logical reason as to why they are holding off to March).
I expect a fairly prolonged period of flattish increases (some minor correction possible) as seen in Auckland 2017-19 so affordability for FHB will improve.
The price rises over the past decade are not likely to be repeated for some time and will be a bit of folklore for the next few years.
The market will see will improving affordability for FHB but if the government is committed to addressing homeownership rates then additional support programmes are required. This could take the form of an assistance package such as a grant of $40 to $50,000 or a long term deferred but repayable (on eventually selling) no interest grant of a greater amount. Such action would need to be balanced with actions such as high LVRs on investors to prevent the market heating again.
Not necessarily wedded to these being the only options but they are examples.
So how are we going to address home affordability for those in that age bracket? Given that wages are stagnant but house prices just went up 20%. On an entry level house at $500,000, that's another $100,000 they're going to have to take on with a mortgage, if they can get a deposit together.
IO
I have no problem with up to $100,000 - was the figure I had in mind - loan which would be at 0% interest while the FHB was living in the home and repayable only when the property was sold. The $100k or whatever would count towards deposit requirements and - with conditions set on the first mortgage - it would be registered as a second mortgage.
It would be much like a student loan (but more secure) and the conditions would be much the same - such as overseas travel triggering interest.
Can the government afford it? Well we have just seen the government come up with truckloads to support businesses and employment. It would appear in the government books as an asset rather than liability.
I am not arguing that this is THE solution - rather one of possible solutions.
I’ve never been anti the issues facing FHB.I have been consistent in my view for the morality of a CGT on housing investors.
What I can’t stand is these whining blame shifting wild-guessing ridiculous posters who add nothing and achieve absolutely nothing (I have a fault which I have been unable to address in my advancing years - that is suffering fools gladly)
I really hope that those posting on this site can look to constructive discussions as to how the reality of affordability can be addressed rather than these pathetic blame-shifting lame arguments of boomers fault and born at the wrong time. Pathetic.
#okboomer (jokes :-p)
How do you have a constructive discussion when there is no political appetite for intelligent regulation to restore this distorted market? Its pointless (see Adern's comments last night).
Nobody wants to experience a loss or pain, but everyone wants a gain, but for somebody else to pay for it. Its a recipe for social disorder.
IO
If you consider my post and suggestion there is no need for loss or pain by anyone. It seems you are the only one keen on a bubble burst/pain scenario - try to break free.
Pretty simple really. :)
Yes I considered your post and realised that it made very little sense! Something about turning $100,000 into a student loan then bitching about other people bitching. Then telling me to stop worrying about a bursting bubble after you said we're at risk of a significant correction!
Saved for later i have to go and mow the patch of dirt I call a lawn
Lawn looks heaps better now... it makes me feel good. However IO I doubt you will be feeling good after your bruising exchange above. You're always on the losing side of the argument.
And you always end up being a troll with no argument (the previous two points were just that).
Look at the upticks and decide who 'lost' the argument or whatever that means - who cares about 'winning' and 'losing' an argument on a forum like this. Do you?
Its a bit sad that there are grown men, well who never actually grew up....(I'm assuming you're a grown man, but one who comes onto forums to tell people they're losers?)
Here is a constructive suggestion... ban interest only loans
This suggestion makes no sense. The 100k subsidy from the govt for FHB's will be directly absorbed by those selling. Essentially you will be putting prices up by 100k. Need proof? See when the govt upped the accommodation subsidy and landlords from every corner of the country just happened to increase rents by the same amount as the accommodation supplement. Those same people would be setting house prices when selling to FHBs (or the RE agents would), they will be acutely aware of the 100k subsidy. It would do exactly as every other subsidy (Kiwisaver withdrawals for instance), it would simply pump up the market higher.
Unsurprisingly the answer isn't to add in yet another distortion into the market and hope for the best.
It's actually worse than that. Research in Aus showed the $7k first home buyer grant increased house prices by $57k https://ojs.deakin.edu.au/index.php/dpibe/article/download/52/59
Yes exactly, because any subsidy/grant can be leveraged, as property allows you to do. The grant is the 'deposit.'
And most of the increase went to the land.
bblobes
No - it is your comment that really makes no sense at all.
FHB currently account for only around 11% of new mortgages - investors around 17% and owner occupiers being the most dominant being 70%.
"The 100k subsidy from the govt for FHB's will be directly absorbed by those selling" is rubbish . . . and I am strongly supportive of a high LVR for investors so increased FHB activity is not going to add $100K to houses.
But great - at least we are having a constructive discussion as to possible solutions rather than this blame game and the pity me lame reason comments.
If things continue in the same way ownership for 25 to 35 year olds will be under 25% by 2030
Statistical problems like that are easily fixed - just start measuring garage, caravan and tent occupancy, and we will have plenty to celebrate.
karl
Agreed . . . so what is required???
printer8... as I have said before we need to reduce the demand by about 300K people over the next five years by slashing immigration. Removing demand from any market has very predictable results. Economics 101.
But new hard-line immigration policy does not fit the narrative and agenda of somebody (who rumour has it) is already angling for some special international role in the future. So to maintain our ideals and image of total inclusivity, and for NZ to maybe have the first female UN Sec General, the less fortunate half of our population seem destined to forever pay over 50% of their wages in rent and be excluded from the possibility of ever owning their own home. I'm not sure renters and potential FHBs feel that is a good trade off. We simply need to put our own people first.
The more that young people are sidelined on property ownership, the more there will be a gargantuan change to laws on property investment when their generation represents their views in parliament. Expect FHB grants next year to try and keep equilibrium.
Indeed. More subsidies for NZ's biggest social welfare scheme are bound to be incoming. Ardern has identified that property owners feel entitled to constant gains, and that entitlement must be catered to.
With reduced own-home ownership comes increased investor-owned numbers, to such an extent that it will disturb the balance or stability (RBNZ listening.?) of the economy in a very real way. because when you own a home you stay in it until it doesn't suit your needs any more and will protect your ownership come hell or high water, usually for a minimum of 5 and possibly 30 years as in my case.
But when you are an investor you can change tack with the wind and should some adverse event occur like say rising inflation and alongside it rising interest rates then home owners will suck it up, but investors will cut and run.
So when we get to 80% of all homes being owned by investors and the wind changes slightly the rush to the exit will be overwhelming.
redefine young as people who is not over 50 yrs old then problem solved.
lol. Uncharacteristically funny and somehow doesn't insult democracy while promoting communism. Thank you
So they did have it easier in their day
No, just the generation of savers not spenders.
Not sure if this is sarcasm but thought there was data showing that millennials being big spenders compared to boomers was a false narrative
Does the data show what the money was spent on? Mortgagee repayments or...and please don't forget Generation X
Just did a google search and yes all the data is there if you're willing to look. Boomers were most probably bigger spending than younger generations at the same age. But they like to throw stones from glass houses.
Easier to make things up in your own brain to suit your own narrative in this post truth world right John?
It's a popular false narrative because it enables dodging of responsibility for creating / voting endlessly for policy that transfers wealth upwards to themselves.
Totally false.
Remember boomers spent a lot on fags, booze, cars.
Millenials much less.
Although millenials travel more.
Boomers weren't saddled with large student loan debt at the start of their careers.
Some chose to spend a lot on fags,booze and cars.
Getting a student loan is choosing what you want to spend your money on, a degree. Plenty of electricians,plumbers, builders out there making more than someone with a degree and no student loan.
So you have answered your own false question.
Some boomers wasted money and didn't save, some didn't waste money and did save.
Same with millenials.
But to blame low home ownership on the irresponsible financial behaviour of millennials is total bullshit.
Also fine, we need plumbers, electricians etc. We also need doctors, teachers, nurses etc etc.
.
Course not. Just tradies. All wealth is ultimately generated by houses. It's PHYSICS
Average household savings rate
1990-1999: 1.0% (during highest home ownership)
2010-2019: 1.0% (during lowest home ownership)
Savings rate once home ownership is already at the peak is largely irrelevant you need to allow some time for that savings to convert into home ownership. Your linked data suggests that the average savings rate pre 1993 looks to be 5.1% whilst from 2003-2012 it is -2.3%. Assuming it takes 7!or 8 years to build a deposit and that home ownership rates build up and don’t change overnight that implies a 7.4% per year difference between Gen X and Gen Y !
Nice one John.... Do some homework instead of your false narrative.
Just gotta take control of your own life and hop on the ladder! While I keep pulling up the ladder at an accelerating rate... Don't worry, I'll only put up the rent by 10% this year. What's that? Nah, my employees won't get a salary increase this year, you know, because of covid and all that.
No, sorry, can't fix that leak, I've got to buy a new Land Rover - you have no idea how much that massager seat option costs!
Trust me, it was just as difficult when I was young. I had to save for YEARS to buy my first house at 21 on a single income! Times were really tough back then, we didn't have iPhones and SkyTV and avocado toast every morning!
Yeah, we can't let house prices to fall. What about my retirement? My boat ain't gonna pay for itself you know.
CourtJester
You proudly posted that you could afford to buy a $1.5m home if you so chose but foresaw a bubble burst. You were wrong so no basis for this moaning - wear it.
Cheers
Governments of all parties have forgotten their purpose. Which is to benefit Citizens.
Indeed, KH, and that's exactly what Jacinda did in managing COVID-19........
The benefits to citizens were immense.
TTP
But benefit which citizens?
The benefits need to be distributed as evenly as possible.
They aren't right now.
Easily solved ...tax all empty houses in urban areas, capital gains tax on a second or subsequent properties - including the beach house, land tax on undeveloped land near urban areas, except land that is farmed/growing food etc.
Use these taxes to build houses ....then watch prices go down.
Now watch all the PI's squeal ! .....no need to worry though, you astute property investors, nothing like this will ever happen .....too many VESTED INTERESTS .......what a %^^%$^ !!! the NZ property market is right now, with no one with any balls to go in and do something .....all because of their personal agendas in the political "space"......why should Jacinda's aspirations to be the next Helen Clark, hold this country's economy to ransom !
Don't forget to tax empty rooms, why should a couple have a three-bedroom home when a one-bedroom apartment will do. or tax empty beds or like hot bunking, tax a bed that isn't used 24/7.
This is what certain Govts. do, create a problem and then try to solve it by adding another cost (tax) into the system.
And notice, no one asks what the tax money is going to be used for.
I think using the household stat is very deceptive. I live in an owner occupied house as a boarder, so I'm included in the owner occupier stat. I think this article from 2014 shines a light on the true situation.
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/69025/census-figures-show-home-owne…
Home ownership by adults fell below 50% in 2013, and for under 40's fell to 22%.
Com'on seriously?
This is just media sensationalising issues that have been written about already today
Pretty easy to find evidence to support a perspective when it's a hot topic
I presume they did break it down for Auckland??
It is not 65% ownership in Auckland
It's far lower than that. They use the household stat which only show people living in owner occupied houses. Which includes adult children forced to live with parents, people boarding, and people flatting with owner occupiers. The true stat is likely closer to 40% of adults being owner occupiers by now. https://www.interest.co.nz/property/69025/census-figures-show-home-owne…
Auckland for individual home ownership from 2018 census:
Rodney Local Board Area 61%
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area 57%
Upper Harbour Local Board Area 49%
Kaipatiki Local Board Area 46%
Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Area 50%
Henderson-Massey Local Board Area 43%
Waitakere Ranges Local Board Area 57%
Great Barrier Local Board Area 64%
Waiheke Local Board Area 59%
Waitemata Local Board Area 31%
Whau Local Board Area 41%
Albert-Eden Local Board Area 40%
Puketapapa Local Board Area 39%
Orakei Local Board Area 53%
Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Area 34%
Howick Local Board Area 48%
Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Area 29%
Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area 30%
Manurewa Local Board Area 37%
Papakura Local Board Area 45%
Franklin Local Board Area 58%
Auckland Region 45%
That's households that are owner occupied. A very misleading stat. Under 40's are likely to have less than 20% as owner occupiers. The percentage of adults that are owner occupiers have been below 50% since the 2013 census, and are likely to have fallen a lot further in the last 7 years.
Did you notice that the cheapest places to buy in Auckland
otara otahuhu, manurewa also have the lowest home ownership... very ironical butt not surprising.
That is because for the people who tend to live in these areas, prices are still unaffordable
I assume partly due to investors crowding the lower quartile market?
Is this responsible RBNZ regulatory oversight?:
Banks extending 60 % of their lending to one third of already wealthy households to speculate in the residential property market because the RBNZ offers them an RWA capital reduction incentive, to do so.
Or this:
RBNZ cutting OCR in half five times since July 2008, causing the rich to capitalise rising discounted present values of future asset cash flows.
Hmmmm....
Wealth effect or wealth illusion? The other therapeutic effect of lower-for-longer interest rates is the wealth effect. By driving up the value of future cash flows with lower rates of interest, all manner of assets – stock, bonds, and houses – increase in value and, thereby, can stimulate our marginal propensity to consume. More simply put, the imperative was to make rich people richer so as to encourage their consumption. It is not so hard to imagine negative side effects.
There are the obvious distributional effects between those who have assets and those who do not. Returning house prices in California to their 2005 levels may be good for those who own them, but what of those who don’t?
There are also harder-to-observe distributional consequences that flow from the impact of lower-for-longer interest rates on the value of our liabilities. This is most easily observed in pension funds.
Consider two pension funds, one with a positive funding ratio and one with a negative funding ratio. When we create a wealth effect on the asset side of their balance sheets we also drive up the value of their liabilities. Lower long-term interest rates increase the value of all future cash flows – both positive and negative. Other things being equal, each pension fund will end up approximately where they started, only more so.
The same is true for households but is much more ominous, given the inequality of wealth with which we began the experiment. Consider two households: one with savings and one without savings. Consider also not just their legally-defined liabilities, like mortgages and auto-loans, but also their future consumption expenditures, their liability to feed and clothe themselves in the future.
When the Fed engineered its experiment to promote the wealth effect, the family with savings experienced an increase in the present value of their assets and also an increase in the present value of their liabilities. Because our financial assets are traded in markets and because we receive mutual fund and retirement account statements, we promptly saw the change in the value of our assets. We are much slower to appreciate the change in the present value of our liabilities, particularly the value of our future consumption expenditures.
But just because we don’t trade our future consumption expenditures on the stock exchange does not mean that the conventions of finance do not apply. The family with savings likely ends up where they started, once we consider the necessity of revaluing their liabilities. They may more readily perceive a wealth effect but, ultimately, there is only a wealth illusion.
But what happened to the family without savings? There were no assets to go up in the value, so there is no wealth effect – real or perceived. But the value of their future consumption expenditures did go up in value. The present value of their current and expected standard of living went up but without a corresponding and offsetting increase in assets, because they don’t have any. There was no wealth effect, not even a wealth illusion, just a cruel hoax.
https://www.grantspub.com/files/presentations/FISHERGRANTSREMARKS15MAR1…
Responsible behaviour was something respected in the past. Popularity is now a more important virtue than responsibility
Wonder what all the folk who made these policy decisions are invested in?
Just got back from the Palms Shopping Centre .. the poverty in New Zealand is extreme!
Lots of broke-ass people walking and begging everywhere. Lots of people with no subcutaneous fat due to clearly being on meth.
New Zealand is really an unpleasant place .. on the way back home all I could think about was renewing my passport - it's good to have an escape plan.
But not broke-ass enough not to be able to afford $50-$100 of meth a day.
They don't have to. They just steal from those that can
Why wouldn't they?
We're busy using policy to steal wealth from younger Kiwi workers and savers. Inflating away wealth ends up having moral consequences. It did in Europe in the early 20th century.
The free money scramble we're handing over to asset holders is not free. It is taken from others and with it comes consequences for society.
They steal, just ask my neighbors .. they had to installing security cameras a few weeks back.
My ute got stolen from the work depot a year ago. Months later, we found out they'd also been siphoning the work utes and cars.
Meth is such a stain on society, I hate it. You know it's bad when the gangs won't let members and family take it.
Not just us though, it's ripped apart rural Australia as well https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-13/ice-scourge-giving-nsw-towns-an-…
The country is going in a really bad direction.
If you have a conscience you will feel bad about that.
Sadly, in reasing numbers don't have a conscience, it's about 'ME, ME, ME!!!'
Your a bit slow to finally realise that Fritz, however the next thing you will realise is that everyone is the same. Its a dog eat dog world and I concluded years ago that basically nobody give a shit about anyone else, they will walk right over you to get to the top.
These people who can't afford houses won't be having many kids. It's the great kiwi genocide by stealth.
Many have kids and receive a state house for life. It doesn't pay to be too responsible in NZ.
We don't need kids anymore, immigration will ramp back up as soon as the borders open.
Would not be surprising to see young workers who have little hope of getting a house without help basically packing their bags and moving to AU or further abroad as soon as the COVID debacle settles down...
where
a) wages are higher...
b) living costs are lower...
c) there is more affordable housing in and around key cities
d) there are more opportunities
e) workers possibly get student loans and degrees but use them in another economy giving little benefit to NZ
Well maybe young people should stop buying smashed avo and there wouldn't be such an issue
Agreed, I don’t like avocado and consequently I own my own home. Easy!
I'm an outlier. I confess to eating avocado once a month-ish and have a house. You could even say I'm the "1%"
At $20 a go, you only need to skip 10,000 smashed avo' brunches and there's your deposit. Quit complaining.
In my day we ate mud on toast and liked it.
You had toast in your day ? We ate real estate fliers instead
Toast? That would require the opulence and extravagance of a toaster. For Christmasses, sometimes we would get a cigarette lighter to start a small fire, although in the years we got that there were no sovs left over for bread. So we just ate the lighter instead.
Perfect john
That was Marmite mate, if you were rich you got potato chips with it.
RNZ have been talking about rates across the country from a report by the Tax Payers Union? How about an article Interest?
Pretty superficial IMO. They're basically implying high rates = poor cost control when there is no way of disaggregating what the various councils are spending the money on. E.g. Auckland rates look far too low relative to house prices and the underinvestment in growth infrastructure while Carterton is skewed given it's one of the fastest growing districts in the country.
You whinging lot should get out more often and stop interviewing your key pads.
The shops are full of people, stock is in short supply, the number of big ticket items being sold is at an all time high, cars clog the streets, building and renovating is flat out. All signs that the majority of people are getting on with it and money is plentiful. There will always be those who miss out, and the poor and bludging class will with us forever. That’s the system. Many of the less well off have brought it on themselves through drugs, drink or having babies when they can’t afford them. The whingers and whiners just want “the Government” to provide helicopter money free. Witness the disgraceful carry on by the bludging class when scrabbling in the dirt for free $5 vouchers. There are those who can and do. The rest want everything free.
" The whingers and whiners just want “the Government” to provide helicopter money free"
Big D............that exactly where the current spend boom is coming from. Govt free money.
I thought you were smarter than that comment.
Why would you think that?
You gloating lot should get out more and stop interviewing your latest CV values.
The shops are closing in record numbers, COVID has caused supply shortages, the number of big ticket items being sold to property investors is at an all time high, cars pollute the streets, building and renovating for free capital gains is flat out. All signs that the majority of investors and politicians are getting on with it and equity is plentiful. There will always be those to want basic shelter, and the rich property cartel will be with us forever. That's the system. Many of the well off have brought it on themselves by being born at the right time, voting for politician's who pump the system or free money from a complicit central bank. The gloaters just want "the Government" to provide free capital gains. Witness the disgraceful carry on by the property class when scrabbling in the dirt for lower quartile brick and tile units. These are those that can leverage their equity into multiple investments. The rest want to pay ever-increasing rents.
Yip the bludging is being done by property owners, not the poor (the average landlord received hundreds of thousnds this year via the states actions - what did the poor get?....nothing). So BigD is throwing stones from a glass house.
Its funny how the 'helicopter money' has just flowed into higher property prices making the likes of BigDaddy (Ollie Newland?) richer - yet they have the audacity to throw stones at those who received nothing via the massive stimulus this year!
Who is actually bludging off the state - landlords who own assets and don't do much but receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity in their assets for doing, well, pretty much nothing other than having ownership rights.
Pull the other one BigD - I think you're rapidly becoming out of touch.
He's long been irrelevant.
^^ This comment said completely without irony by one of New Zealand's biggest welfare recipients who has mistaken that welfare for his own merit. What a complete lack of self awareness.
Same people in power, same policies, same outcomes. Repeat every election cycle.
Yep. National Lite.
No , all of them . We are at the mercy of Central Banks and they own all of 'them'
All the more reason we need #rentcontrolnow.
That might help working class people. Why would Labour (as a political party) want to do that?
Yes, let's disincentivize all investment in property. That should help increase supply.
Absolutely. We need to build a huge number of state houses and work from the bottom up, get the worst affected affordably housed, get as many of the out of the clutches of the people farmers (you might call them investors) and into a settled and secure HOME, something people farmers do not provide.
Eventually, we should be able to convince those seeking to profit from insecure housing go find something more productive to put their money into.
A pretty basic question one might have thought:
2 million people increase in pop since 1981 says the report.
How many houses built since 1981? V difficult to find the answer, if it is there.
Report does say some v interesting things, buried in mid report of course:
parcel of land average in Auckland for built in 2010-19: 492m squared
2020: 388m square.
Getting LESS land for more cost. This measure of inflation of prices is never mentioned.
Houses in Millwater for example have 20% more land per house than those in Red Beach recent development
But are same price. 4 years separating the builds.
Another nugget: prop of 25-34 year olds in own house: 65% in 1988. Now 33%
Affordability eh?
A lot of that is probably due to decline in wages of that group, relative to other age groups
But mostly it is because they cannot save deposits
For the 25-34 age groups. 12% of their gross income goes to repaying student loans. Another cost added in recent decades that makes saving a deposit harder.
It's the young peoples fault, clearly they're still buying smashed avo on toast & buying luxurious items... Boomers had is so much harder with affordable housing, stable employment & govt support schemes! Boomers deserve multiple properties, guaranteed untaxed capital gains & their pension paid for by the young.
They're good at voting.
And very keen to transfer others' wealth to themselves rather than standing on their own two feet.
Im really amazed that the PM and her crew are building up to a new Labour housing policy of .......do nothing.
First it was the speculators that were putting up house prices. Then it was the foreign buyers. Then it was the a Chinese who were the culprits. All were dealt to. Result even higher prices. Now it’s investors who are to blame. Society, backed by the Government, always wants to find a minority to blame for Society’s ills. This is the oldest trick in the book and has been used since the beginning of time. This sort of “blame a group” has caused the persecution and murder of millions of minorities in Australia, North America, Europe, indeed everywhere. Who comes after Investors”?
Maybe you?
Humility when you have more than you need is always a good option instead of throwing stones from your glass house. Generally speaking, it means less heads get cut off (see history).
Yeah, sorry, but overseas buyers WERE a factor when they were, and yeah they were mainly Chinese, getting their capital out of China and away from authorities there, that was why numerous houses were bought by one person at a time, often sight unseen. It is why OTT money was paid at the time, it did not bother them if they lost of bit of it. And when we did what we could to put the mockers on it and the Chinese govt decided to stem capital flight, it did cool the market for a while. But we keep importing people and we maintain laws that make it so easy for "investors" to get into the housing market and then simply "farm people" until such times as capital gain rewarded them. Then came Covid, a situation where much of what we have done was seat of the pants stuff, including moves by the RBNZ to keep things going, such as throwing interest rates down a very deep well. Lots of people returning, cheap loans and hello, counter to what we thought would happen, up go house prices.
Yes, it is investors fault, always has been in one shape or other, either overseas money hiders, or local people farmers, everything has been set in this country to encourage such garbage.
I desire to see much regulatory change to reset things and improve society, so that the citizens have a stake in our society, mainly, in the first instance, in being able to have somewhere to call home, something that a rented house in this country can never, ever be.
It has always been a system that allows rentier behavior, the main culprit is landbanking. Always.
Why would they fix it? The current arrangement creates more poverty (more labour voters!) and keeps the rich happy (the salmon eating socialist / virtue signalling / chattering classes set - more voters!)
The only people that suffer are the rest of us!
the 'salmon eating socialists' are the landlords?
I don't think so (outside the Labour cabinet).
Landlords are a) Kiwi-as Mum'n'Dad DIY nearly-retired tradie types who somehow found themselves with a portfolio of property, by gum, and while they're very humble they don't mind telling you quietly how much it's gone up this year and also how they earned every cent of it... or b) names on a council document that you only ever contact via an agent, and if you ever meet the 'owner' it's a 19-year-old student...
Young people need to:
1) Stop upgrading their avocado every year.
2) Cut down on the smashed iphone on toast.
3) Acknowledge that in my day interest rates were 9000% and we paid off our mortgages in 5 years by working 15 jobs.
Also the snow was much higher (global warming, less snow).
yes and only drink Double Brown...
Its hard to resist a good smashed iphone on toast!
Lowest ownership level in 70 years? must be a mistake! Spoke with my old uni mate Stevo last week, he has 12 of them NZ houses, just ticked up another one. Stevo lives in OZ, has since he left uni 20 years ago. I asked why he don't buy some of them Oz houses? "Don't be stupid mate, they got that capital gains tax here".
Stevo wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and still isn't, he got a nice inheritance 5 or 6 years ago and has a very average paying job. In 5 years he's accumulated 12 NZ houses, most of which he's never even seen. How can we have such low rates when me old munter mate Stevo owns 12?
BTW Steve is moving back to NZ soon to lock in his super at 65 ;)
Haha pretty much sums up our problems in one example.
Doesn't highlight any problems to me, rather you have to ask the question, if the "Not the sharpest tool in the shed" Stevo can do it, why can't you ?
Why do we have people here on 6 figure incomes with University education complaining that they cannot buy a house ?
Because Stevo already owns them and doesn't want to sell.
How much is the percentage figure warped by the fact that we have imported one million low wage, low skill immigrants, and granted residency visas to tens of thousands of young foreign students? Excluding immigrants, the percentage of actual New Zealanders owning homes would probably be higher.
I have a year 10 and year 8 kid and I can see no future in NZ for them. My plan is to move to Australia as soon as they are finished school. They also have a property bubble, but its not as bad as NZ and the wages are higher.
Both Labour and National have failed there voters by filling councils with bureaucrats and making the consenting process so difficult. This is the result - a dysfunctional society of baby boomer's that just don't care. Who cares about the youth and tomorrow? All that is important to baby boomers is that they still have the audi, the batch and boat, the 6 rentals and their home in Mission Bay. Disgusting really. . . .
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.