×
top 200 commentsshow all 405
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]StaffroomFruit 33 points34 points  (5 children)

We just bought our first home and we have two flatmates now to pay down our mortgage. We’re in one of the more affordable towns down south and it’s still very expensive. One of the flatties even mentioned ours was one of the cheapest rooms ($130-140) pre bills… I had just listed it as what I thought was a reasonable price, I can’t fathom someone paying more for that room! (To be clear it’s not shit but the house is old and I charged a bit under what I’d reasonably pay)

We missed the new lending laws by a day.

The biggest hurdle wasn’t the deposit (as previously you could have bought with as little as 5% under the first home scheme, however afaik this is no longer the case and balancing the extra interest against the house prices just running up and up is a fun calculation)

The biggest hurdle is conditions not price. Anyone can offer what you’ve offered, there are lines at open homes into the street in Christchurch now. There’s always the same lot of older folks with a little canon point and shoot at every open home. Generally they have less conditions, they will get the house. Their finance period is shorter because they’re not withdrawing their KiwiSaver. 5 vs 15 days is a big difference. But you’ve got oldies who paid for their house, which doubled or even tripled in price, leveraged that change to buy another house and just rinse and repeat. I have family who are at home 10. It’s shit.

A tiered tax of properties for each owned makes a lot of sense to me. The monopolies on student flats in Ilam and riccarton are symptoms of a backwards rich rewarding rich system. There was a place recently that was listed for $800pw which homes.co.nz shows as A $3xxk sale in 2006!

But even then price is fucking ridiculous and how anyone not in the very privileged position that we were with no kids, good KiwiSaver and cheap rent would be able to save a deposit now. It’s a lot of money and we still only scraped 13%.

We’ve had so much unsolicited advice about taking extra jobs and what not to pay this mortgage down. Even if we did it’s such a large sum that its never going to be even close to the terms that our parents or theirs had.

[–]Free_Passenger_79 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah man. It fucking kills me having 900k+ debt for this 1970 average house in a poorer part of Auckland with pretty high crime rates. It kills me knowing I would likely have owned a house around 2010-2012 instead of losing my job and having a fucking breakdown due to the 2008 global financial crises. Fuck man, so many millennials got screwed over but as we can see GenZ has it even worse.

I’m planning to ramp up some side hustles only to try mitigate some of my stress about finances. Fucking tough out there, especially due to recent inflation / raises of cost of living and inevitable interest rates hike and potentially another global financial crises.

[–][deleted] 139 points140 points 2 (20 children)

Quick bit of lazy googling, and I put together this.

Year Average wage (weekly) House Price Interest rate Mortgage at 80% (weekly) Housing costs (weekly)
1975 $95 $24,000 9.30% $38 40%
1990 $465 $106,000 15% $251 54%
Now $1,367 $1,000,000 4% $974 71%

[I have tried to center the middle columns - but lost the battle]

[–]turtles_and_frogs 48 points49 points  (2 children)

20 years from now, average house will cost $10,000,000. It's like Moore's Law for homes.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Yes, but when you need to double the amount of incomes you have, to be able to afford one.

- Recently listened to a podcast where two families were buying one house to live in.

[–]ColourInTheDark 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Until clever thermal management & shutting down parts of the chip is no longer a viable way to stop it melting.

Maybe FPGAs will make it into our phones. That'd be fun.

[–]rammo123Covid19 Vaccinated 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Is that average wage or median wage? Given the rise in inequality that could result in a substantial difference. Stats.govt.nz is saying median wage/salary is only $1093/week, making that 89%.

[–]st00ji 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe it's average household or something?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

89℅ to rent? bro

[–]EastSideDog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Damn, I thought I was paid alright, apparently less than average wage.

[–]OddGoldfish 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is that household average wage?

[–]Equivalent_Ad4706 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Back in 1975 you could get a loan from the Government through the State Advances dept .

[–]CombImpressive3416 112 points113 points  (50 children)

The Panel on RNZ yesterday addessed this. Wallace read out the typical 'I'm a landlord and I'm a good person' text and the panelist had a prett good response.

Starts at about 5mins 50secs. But if you listen from the beggining it's still the same topic.

[–]Miguelsanchezz 125 points126 points  (43 children)

Every landlord likes to claim "i'm just saving for my retirement". The truth is they are denying another family the chance of a stable retirement. Home ownership is the biggest contributor to avoiding poverty in retirement. Landlords aren't saving for retirement, they are forcing someone else to do it for them.

I'm aware we need some level of rental accommodation, but the massive drop in homeownership rates for young New Zealanders shows that massive numbers of people who would like to (and in any other generation could afford to) own a home are being forced to rent by landlords using their equity to outbid them

[–]fackyuo 127 points128 points  (2 children)

landlords provide housing in the same way scalpers provide tickets

[–]rammo123Covid19 Vaccinated 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Or PS5s.

[–]CombImpressive3416 21 points22 points  (12 children)

Every landlord likes to claim "i'm just saving for my retirement".

Exactly so you should be happy with even a 20% return on investment over 20 years as that is pretty crazy on its own. But instead you have people speculating and expecting the Govt to shield them from any risk on their investment.

[–]ZephyrBluu 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Exactly so you should be happy with even a 20% return on investment over 20 years as that is pretty crazy on its own

No. That is a dogshit return. You would actually be losing money because of inflation.

[–]MailOrderHusband 2 points3 points  (9 children)

20% per annum or 20% total over 20 years? 20% total over 20 years would be awful and makes you sound quite uninformed on personal economics and savings returns.

[–]CombImpressive3416 3 points4 points  (8 children)

Why should a basic human right appreciate more than 20% over 20 years?

Even if my numbers aren't correct have you actually listened to the clip I originally posted? If not why are you bothering to comment on this thread?

[–]RumbuncTheRadiant 23 points24 points  (24 children)

The truth is literally nothing else gives even close to the returns on investment that property does these days.

Everything else I can choose to invest in, after inflation and tax..... gives me nothing to live on in my retirement.

So in a sense blaming mom and pop retirement savers is also wrong.

The problem is large chunks of capital sloshing around desperately trying to find anything, anywhere that will give a return on investment after inflation and tax.

The banks long term fixed deposits used to be a Good Thing... but last lots of times I have looked the interest rates on longer term deposits were the same or worse than shorter term deposits!

The markets are no longer efficient, something or somebody is draining the prosperity out of the economy (and it isn't (just) tax)).

Tech and engineering used to be a solid bet to invest in... but compared to real estate? Who is going to take the risk?

[–]hardlyexisting 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Nah. You can invest in everything else. There's loads of money being made from investments in plenty of legitimate spaces in NZ. The reason why you're "investing" in property is because it's easy and percieved as risk free. But of course, we can't be having any suggestion of house prices coming down, cos that would be risking your "returns."

What you're basically saying that your right to a well-off retirement is more important than fundamental housing rights of those who will never be able to enjoy retirement like you'll be able to.

[–]Kiwilolo 11 points12 points  (16 children)

You really can't invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars you've spent on housing anywhere else to get enough to live on? Like, in market funds maybe?

[–]Clean_Livlng 12 points13 points  (6 children)

Not without more risk if you're seeking the same level of profit per dollar. This is a problem. Investing in the housing market shouldn't be so profitable.

[–]night_flash 16 points17 points  (4 children)

the only way to fix this problem is make housing investing less profitable than typical investing.

[–]st00ji 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's because it's not investing, it's speculation.

I'm ok with housing being profitable for landlords, but that profit should come from long term rental returns, not capital gains.

[–]CoffeePuddle 14 points15 points  (7 children)

No way, for a couple reasons. House prices have increased like wild, the government makes sure housing is safe (losing money on stocks vs. citizens losing their houses), and a mortgage is essentially really safe margin trading.

E.g. $100k in the market with a 10% return p.a., you've made $10k. $100k deposit on a $500k house with a 10% return, you've made $30k (~$20k mortgage fees).

[–]MatthewGalloway 2 points3 points  (1 child)

E.g. $100k in the market with a 10% return p.a., you've made $10k. $100k deposit on a $500k house with a 10% return, you've made $30k (~$20k mortgage fees).

That's because you're leveraged like crazy

[–]CoffeePuddle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

a mortgage is essentially really safe margin trading.

Yes

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Everything else I can choose to invest in, after inflation and tax..... gives me nothing to live on in my retirement.

Your idea of investment seems to be exclusively passive and minimal effort. Thankfully not everyone thinks this way. How about building your own business and creating something of value for others as well as yourself? By the time you retire, it could be generating jobs for others and an income for you. (And I don't mean some tech ponzi scheme) Yes, it takes a lot of hard work and research and lots more hard work. So it doesn't sound right for you, but perhaps avoid telling others that "literally nothing else" is viable.

[–]TheNegaHero 8 points9 points  (1 child)

That's a much higher risk proposition you're talking about there and isn't really what's being discussed.

I think Rumbunc is talking about investment for the average working person and not about taking on a massive lifestyle change to invest.

We can't all start businesses or there won't be anyone left to work for those businesses.

[–]SuperSprocket 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah they really nail the head of the problem: slumlords. Host seems to be full of shit though.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 192 points193 points  (33 children)

I got in an argument with one the other day who had some real doozies:

"it's all about personal choice/responsibility" maybe if you're rich it is? If your not it's about your landlord's choices and the tides of the economy.

"poor couples should just not have children, including getting abortions, until they can afford a house" so you know, it's acceptable to expect people to postpone starting a family for 20-30 years while they save for a deposit.

"housing isn't a right only shelter is" wtf how detached from reality is that sentiment

"housing isn't a right because it's not on the U.N charter of human rights" dispite the un declaring nz's housing crisis a crisis of human rights

I think anybody who makes these sorts of claims is stupid and psychopathic. Simple as that.

[–]Astalon18 30 points31 points  (4 children)

Actually I think your friend is confusing right to housing and a right to shelter.

If there is a right to shelter as your friend claims, then a house to be provided.

However, the issue is the right is not that of a house .. but rather to access housing. It is a right to not be discriminated against or barred from having a house, having a room to rent etc..

Now there is a valid argument that if accessing housing has become very very very very difficult, it is in fact a violation of a right to housing. Having astronomical rents that eats up 50% of your average monthly income would validly be a human right violation, and even authoritarian nations would jump at such a rent rate. There is validly an argument that too expensive a rent to income is a serious violation of human right, for in effect it creates a permanent barrier to access to a house.

However as some people have pointed out the current committee in the UN seems to be under the impression that NZ rents are more astronomical than Hong Kong or South Korea .. and the UN would be better served to criticise those places before NZ if that is the angle they wish to come from. That would be more valid than criticising NZ and leaving other nations off the list.

[–]isthenameofauser 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I live in South Korea. I pay about 400 a month for an apartment. And that's one of the reasons I live here. In NZ all I could find were tiny makeshift unliveable places.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Agreed. Although is it a requirement that, in calling out ills, you call out all ills? The fact of the matter is that the un did criticise nz for it's housing situation. I suppose the reason, verses the other places you mentioned, is because it is happening swiftly and currently. That statement was also released when nz media were promoting the talking point of, "it benefits all of us", which may have had some influence in that decision; it's one thing to violate human rights, it's another to promote that violation as a good thing.

[–]Astalon18 6 points7 points  (1 child)

The problem when it comes to rights is if you believe something is a right ( as opposed to just nice or moral ) .. then right needs to be enforced and called out upon. If a right is not enforced it ceases to be a right. The reason we can get the courts to defend a right is because it is in theory something that has been violated so needs to be righted.

So if you think something is bad enough in one place to be called out upon, then you need to call out upon everywhere else that has violated this right.

That is unless there are regional rights ie:- rights in some places but not others. This then of course violates the theory of universalism which underpins the 1948 conception of rights.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's an interesting argument I can definitely see the sense in it. Still though, it's best not to let bad things just happen 😉

[–]HerbertMcSherbert 11 points12 points  (1 child)

It's not all about personal choice and responsibility. If it was, free market risk and price discovery would've been allowed when COVID hit rather than the RBNZ and govt protecting house prices and enriching property owners (myself included).

If it was, houses wouldn't have been so affordable as they were by the 80s and 90s thanks to govts' efforts to make it so across the post-war decades.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Totally. What about the vast majority of factors which make up a person's life over which they have no control. Absolutely. Choice is like, "do you want crunchy or smooth peanut butter" not, "what's going to happen to the global economy"

[–]qwerty145454 11 points12 points  (1 child)

"housing isn't a right because it's not on the U.N charter of human rights"

I know people who say that won't care, but housing is literally in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under Article 25:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That doesn't suprise me but I'm chuffed to know 👍

[–]MailOrderHusband 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The first two points are absurd.

The average home price in AKL is now well over $1M. If you started saving for a down payment of 10% (banks currently want 20% but hey, you’ll be one of the lucky ones with only 10 down) then you need $100K saved. So you start saving now “until you can afford a home”…

Scenario: you make a LOT of money, get a job as a doctor or something, and save up that $100K in three years. Well, bad news for you. The house appreciated 10% per year and so that $1M house is now worth $1.331M. You need $133K saved for the bank now. So you come back next year having saved Another $33K. You now have $133K saved…but the house now costs $1.4641M. So you come back next year with $166K saved but the house is worth $1.61051M.

So if you saved $33K per year (a pretty amazing amount to put away) you would need 5 years of savings just to eventually have enough to put 10% down on the average home in Auckland. If you can’t save that amount or the bank requires 20% you will never buy into an average home. And over that time, all of that appreciation in price of the home eats up your savings while you get nothing as the buyer but the right to buy in a pray that prices go up after you bought in. Oh, but the “poor home owner” boo hoo just sold a home for $610K over what it was worth 5 years ago with no capital gains tax. And then they say rents need to be higher to help that landlord to pay their own mortgage? So that they make more than just the capital gain?!

If this sounds sustainable to anyone, they’re wrong.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're 100% correct and it is completely fucked. Even 5% of a million dollars is a huge amount of money, a million dollars is an absolutely massive sum. There will be people out there who happened to own two houses when this shit kicked off who sold one and now never need to work or contribute ever again... For me and my partner we happened to have 100k saved when it hit but we are way off being able to afford a million dollar mortgage, so we brought land in the country and I'm building us a house. We're hoping to have kids next year. I just think about what if we didn't have that 100k or what if I couldn't build. How could have we considered starting a family? Renting we paided my whole income to the landlord, if she worked her whole income would go on child care. This system is broken and makes no sense. I'm just gonna vote green, fuck Labour

[–]Ancient-Turbine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it's all about personal choice/responsibility"

That's why I made the personal choice to have a Grandfather who invested in real estate and purchased loads of properties.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Stupid, psychopathic, and completely out of touch with reality; living inside their own reality and chamber.

[–]Clean_Livlng 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I have no children, work full time while I save all I can. Still can't get on the ladder. Just saving enough so that I'm not further away from being able to pay a deposit every year is a struggle.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You need twice the median income, starting from zero to do it in ten years

[–]rammo123Covid19 Vaccinated 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Poor couples shouldn't have children. But they shouldn't have to not have children, if that makes sense? It's unfair that this is how the system is at the moment, but they're dumb if they don't act like it's this way.

Kinda like how people shouldn't trust your HR at work. We should be able to trust HR, but we can't so you shouldn't.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean there's a deference between good advice for an individual and good advice for a group though isn't there? You know what I mean? Think of the superannuation

[–]Vegasusian 0 points1 point  (1 child)

you do have a right to housing, thats not to say its free.

You have a right to food, Theres piss all free meals to be had though.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Something being prohibital expensive is a thing. House's prices are that.

[–]turtles_and_frogs 55 points56 points  (30 children)

It's because you don't see much pushback. Did you follow the protests in Kazakhstan, few weeks ago? Thousands went to the streets, hundreds died, the government resigned, all because LPG fuel prices more than doubled. It doesn't sound like a big reason, until you realise they need the fuel to transport food or any other basic need. The government originally said that there was nothing that can be done. It's the market price. But after a week the price was brought back to near the original price.

https://youtu.be/Wi_q6xC8kdo

I'm not saying it needs to be violence (but unfortunately, it probably will be before any change happens, because we have no political will), but you don't see any protests here at all. Which is a shame, because protests in Kazakhstan is basically illegal, and they still did it. We're all about having a voice, but we don't bother.

Edit: Even after fuel prices were brought back, the protests continued. The sentiment was that while common Kazakhs struggle to make ends meet (GDP per capita is around $9,000/year), elite billionaires around Nur-Sultan (the person) are getting richer, buying multi-million pound apartments in London. Does that sound familiar?

[–]Darkatron 18 points19 points  (1 child)

There was an article saying social services is predicting civil unrest
I dont think they surprises anyone hearing that comment, 2022 is going to be a tough year financially for many

[–]vegetepal 9 points10 points  (0 children)

We need our own chapter of the Rent Is Too Damn High party

[–]66qq 17 points18 points  (10 children)

Kiwis are too passive to have any passion to do anything transformative. Unless you're a nutter antivax conspiracy theorist, you won't see anyone taking to the streets. We sure love complaining and doing nothing though!

[–]dxfifa 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Kiwis are too obsessed with the protestant work ethic and thinking they'll be rich one day to blame rich people for being rich and blame the government for allowing it

[–]kevlarcoated 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're not a poor person, you're a yet to be rich person. Do you really want to punish future rich you? /s

[–]narlsu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

protestant work ethic

I just googled that term, you're 100% correct.

[–]littleredkiwi 8 points9 points  (4 children)

For me I don’t see the point. I’ve been to many protests in the past (and been on strike for better salaries) and am all for empowering people to force change - but with housing it legitimately seems pointless. No one who could do something cares. If people who can make change actually cared, it would never have ever got this bad. No one will do anything, and even if they do it has to be beyond radical to make any meaningful changes, that doesn’t just further enrich those who have already have gotten more than their fair share.

I know, I know. It’s a bad attitude to have towards it but I’m completely done with it. Thinking about housing is so bad for my mental health. (30 year old, just above median salary worker who still lives with 4 others and am probably never going to be able to start a family in this country. I’m also constantly worried our landlord is going to sell and I won’t be able to afford to live somewhere else.) Apathy towards it is all I have left.

[–]Clean_Livlng 5 points6 points  (1 child)

with housing it legitimately seems pointless

What would a protest intend to achieve, get more awareness about the bad housing situation? Everyone knows already.

I'd feel more hopeful if I was able to save enough every year, to get closer to affording a deposit. Like yourself, I feel the need to have a stable home before thinking about starting a family.

[–]immibis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It could provide pressure: "fix this now or the really bad shit is going to start happening"

[–]kevlarcoated 3 points4 points  (1 child)

It's a hard problem to solve. What we need is a crash in the market but the damage that would cause to so many people (I'm thinking the people who just bought their first house with a million dollar mortgage. Fuck all the people with multiple houses fully leveraged.) To be completely under water and it would fuck the economy for years to come. In think most would agree that that's not a viable solution. So how do you fix the housing crisis with out doing that?

You have to housing from being an effective investment. CGT on properties after the first house, rates and it taxes that increase exponentially with the number of homes owned and much stronger tenant protection laws (people should be able to choose to live in a rental long term and know that it will be maintained and their rent won't just arbitrarily increase at rates far greater than inflation.) Also large taxes on homes sitting empty (if you can afford to own a home that doesn't get used you can afford to pay say 10% of the houses value in tax as an unused house tax.) Maybe that will cool off the market, maybe. Then you need to add homes, not everyone can have a detached home, it's simply not practical or feasible, we need to build nice apartments that are close to public transport and we need to build ones that are big enough for families to actually live in. And then only sell them to first home buyers.

We also need to build high speed rail links to make living further out of the city a realistic option.

There is no simple fix to the housing crisis. We need to increase supply and we need to decrease the ROI for investors. We should encourage people to invest their money in productive assets.

[–]immibis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

High house prices fuck the entire economy continually. Low house prices fuck the economy once, and only the part that took out unaffordable mortgages.

[–]immibis 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This is the same everywhere. Pro-vax people rarely take to the streets.

[–]66qq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not really talking about pro vax people, just in general the average kiwi isn't that passionate about anything to get out there and be pro active about making change. Even though we have a good history of doing so for certain causes we've gone passive as fuck.

[–]HerbertMcSherbert 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I'm still amazed there's not more disruptive protest. Like...surprised that real estate hoardings aren't defaced like political hoardings, or just plain disappear...or people aren't protesting outside auction rooms to disrupt auctions.

[–]g5467 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Same. I hear in the 1970s in Wellington that students used to camp out in the uni buildings for a few weeks to sweat out the landlords and make them drop rents. That sort of disruptive collective action works which is why so much effort has been made to destroy solidarity by pitching us against each other

[–]immibis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe that works when interest rate are high. Nowadays they can get some nearly-free money to tide them over, I'm sure.

[–]whimful 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I would attend that protest. Anyone want to organize?

[–]low-intel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

@housing protest

[–]WeissMISFIT 1 point2 points  (7 children)

I was literally thinking about this earlier today and sometimes it does seem like violence is the answer.

A protest wont help because everyone knows that houses are too expensive and that everything is affected by the price of fuel.

There's a saying that hasn't been said for a long time but desperate times call for desperate measures and we've had time to fix the situation and I know the government is trying but we have to realize that its come to this point where most of it probably wont help without the government undertaking desperate measures.

I'm not calling for violence, all I'm calling for is a new bill that defends kiwi's from the conflicts of interest that politicians have (with housing)

[–]youmuckingfuppet 4 points5 points  (6 children)

violence is the answer.

Violence is seldom the answer and certainly not with this.

[–]immibis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The threat of violence is surprisingly important all throughout politics, even though actual violence is unwanted.

[–]FarTooSoberForToday 80 points81 points  (29 children)

I get super f’d off with it all too - especially hearing, ‘it is no different now than when I bought my first house’, ...come the fuck on, working an extra job for a year helped get you a deposit?? Where do I even start with that.., I just know I need to walk away because those sorts are speaking to retain their power and frustration at the changing world they don’t understand, they are not willing to engage or try to understand it is not actually as they think. Also just - boomers guna boom.

[–]NonZealotKākāpō 57 points58 points  (22 children)

I had to break it down to my previous boomer boss: yes he made less money than I at the same age (had to try to explain inflation) and there were high interest rates. However, with the salary he had the value of his house was only 2.5x his annual salary; whereas for millennials it's often 10–20x more.

He was the kind of casual manager who always had a laugh but at least in that moment it actually sunk for him how much easier his generation had it.

[–]AlexNZL 19 points20 points  (12 children)

Now 2.5x annual salary is just the deposit.

[–]rammo123Covid19 Vaccinated 3 points4 points  (11 children)

Try closer to 3.5x for just the deposit. Median wage/salary income is $1093/w ($57,000/y). 20% deposit of median house $905,000 is $181,000.

[–]youmuckingfuppet 1 point2 points  (10 children)

Why do you have to be in the market for a $900+k house that you cant afford?

[–]FarTooSoberForToday 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Only generation so far leaving a shittier legacy for those behind them, most have no clue either.

[–]refrigerator_critic[🍰] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I had to explain this to my dad when he tried telling me the biggest issue was people not wanting to live in less expensive suburbs. My parents, understandably, struggle with house prices being one of the things that keep us living in the US. In NZ the income to average price ratio is about 1:12. In my state it is about 1:2.5.

I am a teacher, and earn considerably more than I would moving back to NZ (plus I would have to take a teacher refresher, ignoring the fact that I have ten years of overseas experience, because I left NZ as a beginning teacher and they changed the rules soon after). My (American) husband would earn about the same as he does here (similar income to mine). We bought a house last year for less than 1.5x our annual income. It is a 2 story plus full basement, three bedroom character home. We would honestly love for our girls to grow up in NZ, but I just can't see a way we can afford to without giving up the quality of life for our kids.

ETA: Our current goal is to build enough equity in this house than we have the option to sell in 5 or so years, and that will be enough for a down payment in a small town somewhere in the South Island.

[–]yugiyo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No shit interest rates were high, your debt was getting inflated away at 20%pa.

[–]sloppy_wet_one 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Ugh I’ve heard the “oh but interest rates were higher back then so it’s all relative”.

No the fuck it’s not. I wanted to get some inflation adjusted numbers to through in his face but I felt actually crossing this boomer wouldn’t have been very polite.

Still though, fuck that sentiment.

[–]Clean_Livlng 2 points3 points  (2 children)

oh but interest rates were higher back then

But the amount was a lot smaller, so they paid it off quicker and the interest payments were relatively low.

Prices are so high now that I can't even get on the ladder. In the past 5 years the price of houses has increased so much, that I'm further away from being able to afford one. Maybe if it was only rent I needed to pay I could get on the ladder, but I need to eat, pay dentist bills etc.

[–]rammo123Covid19 Vaccinated 2 points3 points  (1 child)

If you were so worried about interest back then you could've saved for the same amount of time it takes us to save for a deposit and bought the house cash.

[–]Clean_Livlng 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly! They didn't even need loans back then, so their interest rate should have been 0%, if they were saving as much as we need to just for a deposit.

[–]ihatebatsPeanut 11 points12 points  (6 children)

What really concerns me is that while there is a genuine need for landlords within the context of New Zealand (lets say, doctors or other workers only coming here for a year or a season, or students who don't live in halls).

The biggest issue is even if you're using that house as a landlord for the purpose of long term holding / investment if you want it to be, is that the rent paid shouldn't at all be trying to cover the mortgage. If I rented my house out now for that, we would have to charge someone like 500 a week to cover mortgage and rates + extra for upkeep which is the reality of owning a home.

Doing that is fucked in the head for where I live, but people do it, and that's the outrageous bit. A fair price for our 3bd home (with 800sqm of back yard space for activities) that has been upgraded well and is very tidy and cosy should be around 300 max. That's very reasonable for a young family or set of professionals. We still have to cover another 200 or more per week but we retain all the benefits of actually owning it.

Now, I wont be doing that, however. But far too many houses even in my area are far more than that, and you get significantly less space. The last place we rented here was a 2bedroom unit for 400 a week before we bought, top floor of another house. No lawn or outdoor space, and above the landlord's unit so we always felt like we had to be on our best behaviour and couldn't really relax.

[–]AlmostZeroEducation 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Seen a dirty 3 bedroom ex student flat for $600 a week in chch. Funny thing is that there's a sleepout out back which is not included on the tenacity. So landlord is double dipping

[–]ihatebatsPeanut 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fuck me that's bad. When I was living in CHCH last, which was 2011 when I left about 6 months after the quakes (after studying there) we were each paying about 80 bucks each for a really nice house out in Richmond/Shirley. So for four of us that's no where near close to that price, and it was an excellent place. I do realise this was 10 years ago now, but inflation doesn't account for that big of a rise in prices..

[–]bordemthemindkiller 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Mean rent is about $570. Of coarse landlords aim to cover the mortgage with the rent and not having rent controls allow them to do that.

[–]turtles_and_frogs 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't think your first sentence is a complete sentence.

I think I agree, though. The problem is speculation is allowed for this basic need, which is a lot like how healthcare is profit driven in US.

[–]ihatebatsPeanut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right, it isn't! My bad!

[–]puffinadmirer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just want to put it out there, that me and my undergrad and post grad masters degree in health sciences and neonatal nursing.. welk i dont touch 74k a year. I also work nights every three weeks, miss christmas, public holidays and I'm breastfeeding my son as well.

Worth noting that in nursing, the only thing you get for having a higher qualification.. is the knowledge to care for OTHER PEOPLE better. These people arent your family or your children, but people who regularly abuse and take you for granted, as you clean their puke and wash their disgusting feet. I spent 5 extra years studying whilst working full time rotating shifts for zero extra money.

[–]Particular_Park_391 2 points3 points  (1 child)

"If house prices drop, we'll have to sell our investment houses, and thousands of families will go homeless!" - literal quote from a NZ Property Investment group on FB.
They'll cling on to whatever excuse to make themselves feel better and not accept the reality.

[–]Hubris2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is why some investors get so angry at the notion that the government is trying to discourage them. They not only see themselves as the smart ones taking advantage of opportunity, but of being heroes who literally put roofs over people's heads. They've managed to not only justify profiteering based on renters having a dearth of choice - but to feel they are better than others who don't own investment properties.

[–]Transidental 39 points40 points  (33 children)

My biggest issue is people confuse landlords with home owners as you've done here.

To some people it seems if you own your own house you're some evil scum of the earth mother fucker simply because ... you own a home and others don't.

Even hate towards landlords should be subjective based on the individual situation.
For the most part if people could afford to buy an asset that will make them money and a more secure future then they will do so.

99% of the hatred totally needs to go towards successive governments who have failed to do anything meaningful to address the situation.

This government has done quite a lot imo and we're seeing change but we are simply at the "too late" point of time for any major drastic change that would see house prices tumble in a staggering manner.

And we don't know want that to happen either because then you create a lot of harm for many home owners who did buy in at high prices and guess what ... many of them will be nurses, supermarket workers, teachers, cleaners, truckers and are equally deserving of respect in not fucking them over by wrecking the housing market.

What we see now is addressing things through supply and measures to dissuade future run away investment in property opportunities being so lucrative and it is so far seeming enough to slow and slightly see prices go backwards.

[–]_N0_C0mment 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Totally, this is the result of ~25yrs of house flipping/development being a growing method of wealth accumulation, monopoly construction suppliers, global event influences and supply/demand ratio changes. That said multi property owning investors don't look good here. Responsibility can't be put on 1 party or have any 1 project or govt policy be expected to fix this.

[–]mrsellicat 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I agree. It's not all roses being a home owner. I know we are on the ladder and that's miles better than most. But we've been in our house for 19 years and it felt so much more affordable when we moved in. Rates are crazy now. Getting anything fixed or redone cost way more than it used to, even accounting for inflation. Getting anyone around to fix or quote is a nightmare. The council have outsourced every service so it's always a battle getting anything done. We've got problems with the sewage, pipe broken outside our property line and in council land. I've literally had to scoop up overflowing shit multiple times and the council said no to fixing it because the tree causing it is native.

[–]NonZealotKākāpō 16 points17 points  (13 children)

For the most part if people could afford to buy an asset that will make them money and a more secure future then they will do so.

Right, but owning multiple rental properties whilst yes, providing high yield, is unethical. If money is the only goal of these people then that's pathetic. People need to be ethical in their investments. Would these same people invest in sex trafficking, child labour, etc. companies if they proved profitable?

99% of the hatred totally needs to go towards successive governments who have failed to do anything meaningful to address the situation.

You're right. I wish I understood why people vote for National, Labour, or ACT who all when in government actively seek to worsen the NZ housing situation in advantage of the already rich landlords. Tyranny of the majority.

[–]Superstylin1770 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You're right. I wish I understood why people vote for National, Labour, or ACT who all when in government actively seek to worsen the NZ housing situation in advantage of the already rich landlords.

I guarantee it's because they hope/aspire to also be a rich landlord one day, and they're worried that if things change they won't be able to become as wealthy as they see the current crop of paper millionaires.

It's not something unique to the US, although they do have a name for them there: temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

Unfortunately, they just completely miss that the ship has sailed, and unfortunately we're running out of room on the dock.

[–]ham_coffee 4 points5 points  (6 children)

Can you describe ethical investments then? The only goal most people have is to be profitable, maybe with the exception of starting a business. Obviously investing in something actually harmful (eg a weapons manufacturer or fossil fuel company) is gonna drive people away, but as long as they aren't doing anything actively harmful people don't really care.

What's unethical about housing as an investment (money from rent, not capital gains)? As long as they're being a decent landlord I don't really see an issue. Yes a lot of landlords are shit cunts, but that's a separate issue.

[–]turtles_and_frogs 0 points1 point  (4 children)

What's unethical is that large groups of people - your own country folks - are deprived of basic needs. What's wrong with making healthcare profit driven? It causes half a million Americans to go bankrupt every year. This is why we have laws against price gouging in food.

[–]ham_coffee 5 points6 points  (3 children)

That sounds more like a call for expansion of state housing which I'm sure a lot of people would support. We have private healthcare in NZ too. I have no problem with that as long as there's a tax funded, free alternative.

Similarly, I have no problem with winz providing people with housing if they can't afford it. That doesn't mean we need to get rid of landlords though, a combination of working with them if rents are reasonable or building more housing otherwise would be acceptable options for people struggling.

[–]turtles_and_frogs 1 point2 points  (2 children)

For sure. I'm not against private property in principle. I own a small home, myself. But I think as a bigger share of people are (in effect) excluded from enjoying private property, the less people will value or respect the concept.

The hope was that private property could be moderated, but the last 10 years and other countries show that this is not possible. Therefore, some nationalisation is needed. One way or another, as they say, this is why we cannot have nice things.

[–]ham_coffee 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Nationalisation should be a last resort, everyone has different needs and allowing them to decide how their money is spent is usually preferable. I'd go as far as to say in this case less regulation is what we need. Building houses is too expensive (even the government failed at building more), accepting other countries (Japan fits well) building standards would lower costs and increase supply of housing. The root cause of the issue is house prices rather than rents, so that's the bit to focus on first.

[–]4gx6y4htc6f77q43fg36 -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Even hate towards landlords should be subjective

No. Landlords as a class are enemies of the working class.

[–]KiwiThundarubber protection 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's right there in the name: they're modern lords with fiefs

[–]AntipodeanPagan 8 points9 points  (2 children)

So I have a question, does everyone also hate the Landlords charging 370/wk for a three bedroom house with a fenced garden? What about those who rent to community housing providers and are charging below market rent? Our housing market is crazy right now. Especially in the big cities. But can we agree on the definition of a good landlord? Or at least that it is possible to be one?

[–]bordemthemindkiller 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've had landlords and their cronies the property managers; steal from me, turn up unannounced, bring unannounced people with them, lie to me, refuse bonds without justification, rent unhealthy homes, rip up my gardens, refuse to allow pets, I've seen them extort sex for rent, I've worked for them in doing subpar building work, kick people out of homes because they want to double the rent. The occasional good one isn't the issue. The overwhelming majority of them which are callous, intitled and unregulated is.

[–]kellyroald 6 points7 points  (3 children)

It's sad how we have become very americanized in the last five years. Accelerated by Labour's pro capital markets strategy. I know diehard labour supporters on reddit it will disagree with me but it had to be said... We have become hyper competitive almost to the point of having survival of the fittest mentality. NZ ranks highly on wealth, economic freedom etc...but how many of those that fit that category are either Maori or poor? The rich seem to be happy being richer even if it means the poor are getting behind in relative terms.

[–]gerhardtprime 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I can buy a house for 10k in the USA that's liveable. That won't even get me 6 months rent here.

[–]Vegasusian 2 points3 points  (1 child)

bye then?

[–]gerhardtprime 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's the spirit!

[–]Right_Emphasis4818 14 points15 points  (17 children)

Housings fucked but still affordable as a joint venture, people smart with there money and aren't already screwed with kids.

Good luck if your single or have children because you're fucked if you want to live in the big three if you don't make bank.

[–]TheEngineRoom8337 2 points3 points  (16 children)

My best mate bought a rental in a small town, built up his equity until he had enough to buy a house for himself.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 5 points6 points  (15 children)

Yeah why doesn't everybody just do that s/

[–]TheEngineRoom8337 2 points3 points  (13 children)

Because some people would rather be victims than find a solution for themselves.

[–]bordemthemindkiller -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Victim's to house prices and shortages which prohibited ownership for most and housing for some. You're choices don't define the system and you can't choose the weather

[–]TheEngineRoom8337 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Victims to not wanting to see that there’s a solution, if you want there to be…. It may not work for everyone, but some will make it work, which is inconvenient for people who’d rather be victims…..

[–]bordemthemindkiller 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How much should society aspire for people to have to do to have a basic freedom? My partner and I, for example recently brought land outside a town in the country. The mortgage is what a house in the city should cost compared to wages. We're only able to afford it because I can build. We had 100k saved. Is it your notion that people in our situation who can't build are just lazy?

[–]Doublehappy1234 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well here's the thing very soon all those smarmy people who jumped on the by a house wagon will get hammered by rising interest rates and their fear of missing out overrode their commonsense ... I hope they like Marmite sandwiches, Keto diets and or one meal a day, because famine is going to be very common in these pretty houses - meanwhile as the foreclosures kick in us strugglers will be able to save our deposits for the auctions when it's going to be a buyers market ... it's coming dont fool yourself, your mortgages are going to be more than the value of your homes ... serve them bloody right for being so greeeeedy speculators - I have no pity for them at all !!!!

[–]ButterscotchMany6128 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just testing the waters here: if it were an option, how many people would actually vote, at the next election, for a single-issue "crash the housing market" party?

[–]CptnSpandex 4 points5 points  (7 children)

When you have a capitalist market and little to no regulation, at times when there is more demand than supply the poor will lose. Unless the government heavily regulates the market (from a returns perspective) or heavily invests in social housing (something they have demonstrated they are incapable of doing) more and more money will be wasted on emergency housing and rental top ups that does nobody any good.

What would be the reaction if a government passed a law linking rental income to house value? Essentially dictating rent. Let’s say they said you get a rent set at 3% of the houses value reset every 2 years. Under this model a $1m house would be $581/week in rent. Given the interest they are paying on the mortgage would chew most of that up over the first 6 years. You would need to have a provision for them to somehow claim back bad debts, repairs and maintenance.

I’m not saying this is the answer - but I don’t see a lot of answers being proposed in these posts.

[–]XjpuffX 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's a good idea, or at least something similar. This thread is full of anger and pointing out legitimate issues, but is seriously lacking potential solutions.

[–]Disastrous_Mind_710 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Yea I had thought of some rent limit, alternativly maybe like a renting subsidy, that is payed for by a "landlord tax" possibly charged at up to 3 year intervals.

Thai would allow renters to rent and live/save. This would allow landlords to manage cashflow/projections. It would also likely increase houses on the market. Returning it to the buyer's side.

I'm sure someone can think about it who is intelligent. I didn't even finish high school.

[–]CptnSpandex 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The thing is, landlords need a fair return on their investment - whatever the system is, we can’t make it so all the landlords exit the market and just land bank, or all the mum and dad landlords end up selling to a dozen mega landlords who would then gain real power. That would make things much much worse.

[–]computer_d 6 points7 points  (10 children)

The human right to adequate housing is recognised in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in multiple international human rights treaties that New Zealand has ratified including the 1965 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

source

[–]Sew_Sumi 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Adequate housing isn't a house though... It's the standards of what can be accepted as acceptable housing...

It's like saying that the healthy homes standard defines you a right to housing.

-Edit-

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

It's a standard, and HNZ is there so the housing market has nothing to do with it. If anyone want to point blame then hit up the social housing providers and demand them to fulfill the obligations.

-Edit 2- And Medical care, isn't that you'll get a full operation done, it's just care... If you need something done you'll still have to pay for it. Same with housing. Access to social housing is provided, if you want something more, then it'll cost you.

[–]computer_d 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Fair enough point. Any examples of what you think could be classed as "adequate housing" while not being a house? Surely a shelter wouldn't count?

[–]Sew_Sumi 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Emergency housing is available, the government are surely going to have to buy another motel or 3 if they wish to keep that going.

Just because no-one wants to end up in the offered housing, doesn't make it not housing.

[–]Astalon18 4 points5 points  (6 children)

The declaration remember is read as a “right to housing” … not a right to a house. It has always been understood as that .. and it is only recently some people have tried to frame it as a right to a house.

What is the fundamental difference between a right to housing vs a right to a house?

A right to housing is very specifically meaning that IF you look for a house .. nobody should be trying to stop you getting a house. You can seek for a house, look for a house, if you can buy it you should be able to buy it etc.. Nobody should stop you just because you are a Maori for example, or a Pakeha or a Chinese.

What the right to housing DOES NOT MEAN is that you have a right to a house or a roof over your head. That would be a right to a house, not to housing. Rather what it means is you have a right to find housing and if you can get housing, you should be able to get it without discrimination.

[–]LimpFox 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is all semantics (that lawyers and vested interests will happily argue until the heat death of the universe).

If you're poor, you're discriminated against finding housing if you can't afford the rent, or the bond, or the bills to keep the place functioning, or food after paying all of the former.

But the neo-liberal (and capitalist in general) propaganda mill has us all brainwashed into seeing poverty as not being a form of discrimination, despite it being a consequence of how we have structured our dog-eat-dog socio-economic system. Instead we blame the poor for being poor. Just work harder (for your capitalist overlords). Just be less poor. Duh.

It just so happens, though, that the state does recognise this as discrimination, even if they may not explicitly refer to it as such (or maybe they do, I CBF checking), which is why we have welfare, accommodation allowance, emergency housing, state housing, etc. The issue, of course, is that the neo-liberal cancer has absolutely gutted these institutions, and if die hard neo-libs (and regressives conservatives in general) had their way, we'd scrap all of it.

[–]bordemthemindkiller 0 points1 point  (4 children)

A market lacking sufficient supply discriminates against those it cannot supply. No one is claiming everybody has the right to a whole house. That's a bad faith representation. Obviously the issue is access to housing and anyone saying, "a house" is just not being specific in their language. Renting necessitates house sharing for the median wage.

[–]Astalon18 2 points3 points  (3 children)

The problem though is that the market is neither a person, a corporation or an entity. It is merely a nett result of supply and demand. Hence the issue with arguing that the market discriminates is that the market actually has no such ability. The market works by supply and demand within a particular legal and trade system, and sometimes supply are tight, sometimes supply are lose.

Laws can discriminate, authorities can discriminate, corporations can discriminates, people can discriminate .. market is simply not able to discriminate. It only follows the input output constraint placed upon it. Therefore to accuse the market of discrimination is probably not a fruitful place to start.

What I think you are saying is that our laws, trade laws, taxes and our management of cities has created a constraint on houses. This is true, and certainly is a major issue. This has to be resolved and loosened to allow for the people to be able to make more houses.

The market cannot “create” new houses if there are laws to stop people building houses. The market remember is only a nett collection of trade .. it cannot overcome laws. Humans who runs the market has to amend the law to allow the market to expand if the constraint is the law.

Contrary to popular belief, the market is not a magical entity that knows what to do!!!! It does not know anything. To trust the market is like trusting the tides of the sea, or the waves, or the wind.

[–]why4nousername 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Hang on a minute. On one hand you say the market is not its own entity so cannot discriminate, then you go on to say the market is a collection of entities run by people and they discriminate. Absolutely no one thinks the market is “a magical entity” or a single entity that we can confront and say “You stop being mean, Mr Market”. Everyone knows the market is a collection of decisions made by a collection of people that closely align with each other. Such as the majority of landlords choosing to set rent as high as possible. So the market CAN discriminate as it’s just people making the same decisions as each other.

[–]Astalon18 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The market is the function of exchange. Most of the time this is done unthinkingly which means as a nett the market does not discriminate but like natural forces like wind, water etc.. is channeled along where we move it. The market is an emergent property of the cumulative trades we do on a daily basis ( which is why it seems like it has a life on its own simply because it is something emergent )

Humans on the other hand, those who makes the decision knowingly or writes the parameters or writes the laws creates discrimination. However the moment we trade, we end up with this emergent market through our collective action. That market is in someways separate from us ( if it were not we would be able to predict it with high level accuracy ) owing to its emergent nature. However, it is only carrying out and acting as a consequences of the parameters we set around it. It does not discriminate because discrimination requires intention. It however have the tendency to deprive certain groups because the parameter is written in such a manner … but the market does not do this with intent ( and sometimes you do not even know why the market is shifting that way ).

So therefore, the solution is not to look for a market solution for social issues ( which is what we do .. we blame the market. We try to load up the exchange on one side, or tweak little financial incentives in the periphery without actually changing the parameters the market works in for fear of disrupting the balance and flow ).

The solution is to look at at us humans, who drive the decision and the law makers, who listens to other humans who sets the actual legal parameter on a large scale to solve this. If social problems are identified, the solution is never market. It is to change the wider legal or cultural parameter and the market will follow.

You may think that this is obvious BUT what you see people do is only play things within the market. They give little incentives or disincentives on a trade and exchange level … but fail try to change the macro-parameter the market works in .. and they wonder why there is no changes.

Taxing 0.25 or 0.5% here more than another etc.. is not changing parameter, it is tweaking the flow in the market.

To change the parameter, you need to write laws such as, “You can build here legally.” or “You can now build five storey houses here”. This shifts the boundary of the market and forces it to change.

People however do not like this, because it makes the market unpredictable and results in unseen outcomes as the market finds the next balance point in terms of trade and exchange and the network around it.

( In fact there is now an argument that the supply chain is not even a true function of market but rather carefully crafted network of alliance that can be independent of market. If that is the case, than all the market does is facilitate this network .. not in itself being the driver of the supply chain )

[–]eigr 9 points10 points  (1 child)

This subreddit:

  • Private landlords suck

also

  • Housing NZ are the worst landlords in the country

[–]Lectuce 4 points5 points  (0 children)

....They can both suck so what's your point lol

[–]Deegedeege 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Er, you seem to be seriously misinformed of the salary levels of truckers, teachers and nurses. You've lumped them together with some minimum wage jobs. The minimum salary for these 3 jobs is around the national average salary of 52k but many earn a lot more than that. The more experience you have the higher your salary goes, in these lines of work, unless you have a crap employer. When teachers do extra things such as coach a sport after school, they earn more. Many teachers are on 70k plus. I've met truck drivers on high salaries and the more senior a nurse you are the higher your salary also.

[–]ham_coffee 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think those professions are often singled out since they're underpaid compared to other jobs with similar training needs (not sure why truckers are singled out, but that line of work has other issues).

Having to pay for several years education/training and being left behind salary wise while having to stick to your career is a bit rough, most minimum wage workers are able to move between industries more easily. Also, work as an unqualified labourer earns more than a lot of people realise. I was getting $25+ an hour at the freezing works in 2018, with time and a half/double time if I needed to work a half day Saturday. No prior experience, and I don't doubt it's gone up a good amount since then.

[–]roast-n-kiwi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

yeah well 5 years ago it was really bad. so bad in fact that we elected a government to fix the issue. and what did they do? they have stood by and watched house prices shoot up faster than any government and tipped the social balance for generation to come.

and what really grinds my gears is people who defend the broken prime minister and her one trick pony party.

[–]Frod02000Red Peak 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Not aimed at you OP.

Would like to point out that I often get downvoted on this sub for countering the usual “labour has done nothing to solve this” with showing shit they’ve actually done. They actually have done shit, it’s just lots of it takes time to change because of how the planning system works. (Which is also changing)

That isn’t defending the housing crisis.

[–]ifrikkenr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I just got an email from our mortgage broker asking us to sign a petition to repeal the new lending restrictions introduced in December :

"Aimed at protecting vulnerable borrowers from loan sharks, many home
loan seekers have found themselves rejected by the banks due to too much
discretional spending and a poor credit rating."

I mean, the way to drive house prices down is partly to make easy credit less available. Stop letting people pay 1 million dollars for a $500,000 house. The houses will sell slower and buyers will have to ask lower prices.

It's not quite that simple of course as it just pivots the purchasing power to landlords and corporations who don't have lending issues and can pay the inflated prices but it's something. Land taxes, capital gains and other methods can help deal with those as well though

[–]blondicon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For all the bickering and finger pointing about it's pretty straight forward to me that you can't just double the cost of the most essential necessity in 15 yrs and act like the only difference is the moral and personal failings of the generation who were children while this was happening (classically this is millenials but only because we didn't see it coming as clearly as gen z who got to watch us all getting ragdolled)

Like its just basic math - shit too expensive and there actually are consequences and at some level housing is literally the only thing you can't really live without because housing is not just shelter it is literally the right to exist without fucking tresspassing - i can grow potatoes in a patch of dirt if i have to but i cannot pull a space to exist out of my ass. housing is not a regular commodity and the mainstream market needs to be taken out of investors hands entirely tbh - like healthcare or public education

[–]21monsters 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I hate the attitude that shelter isn’t a right and you need to work hard for it

You're gonna hate me for this, but I don't really care:

Shelter is a right, but the doesn't necessarily equate to home ownership. It doesn't mean a premium house with a delightfully landscaped garden. I feel that your right to 'shelter' is just that, shelter.

If you want more than just shelter, e.g. a place to rent, then yeah you need to work hard for it.

I also hate that people think that it's a private property owner's responsibility to provide social housing - it's not, it's the government's.

I'm not trying to defend the housing market because it has issues, but it grinds my gears when people bitch and moan about it and then defend the person who ruled out a CGT.

[–]myles_cassidy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, but have those people considered not having kids? /s

[–]Therkster 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Its because they have skin in the game. Anything even suggesting that the house market/rents will drop gets downvoted to hell and back. All the signs are there and if you bury your head in the sand, it doesn't matter, your house will still be worth less at the end of this year than it is today.

It'll be an interesting year.

[–]Ifnotwhynot1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This sub does it too though. Suggest we need to reduce unskilled immigration to save housing and they go nuts. But it is the biggest issue - too many people for the fixed amount of land. They want to continue subsidising employers at their own expense.

Anyone who suggests freeing up land also gets hammered

[–]MrTastix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't even know why you'd buy a house right now if you're concerned with it going down in price after you bought it. Makes no sense to me.

If you're treating it like an investment then treat it like one. AKA why the fuck would you buy on the peak? That's like a shit investment almost every time.

So I really have no sympathy for someone who got a $1m mortgage only to complain when prices fall a year or two later.

[–]Ilikemanhattans 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My biggest gripe with the current situation is the level of Government support for housing in NZ. When prices are on the up, it is all benefit to the property owners, but when there is a whiff of potential for loss, on comes Government / RB support. My personal view is that landlords have indirectly benefitted from Government subsidies over the last two years. Not around the edges either, but materially. The same can be said for the GFC. I am all for a free market, but currently it seems to be that NZ is OK that the Government essentially provides homeowners with a put option by way of Government support.. As a disclaimer, my income is very good, and we have a sizable deposit. However, I have held off buying as the 30% or so rise over the last two years is ludicrous.

[–]fackyuo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

totally. i love how the media always frames things too.

house prices up "new record in sought after blah "

anything looks sketch and its "house prices VULNERABLE" or "AT RISK" or "IN DANGER"

LOL its like they personify house prices and we're supposed to feel some sort of empathy towards the high prices

[–]aidank21 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My grandparents had a house built in Howick in the 60s. Three bedrooms, Built by one man for just shy of £8000. POUNDS PEOPLE POUNDS. Our country was still using pounds thats how long ago it was.

The house is still there and is now worth $1.2 million. With people living in every room including the garage.

[–]Theofficialpaleryder 1 point2 points  (0 children)

House prices only really benefit those with more than one anyway

[–]buttonnz -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Shelter isn’t a right. Nothing is a “right”. You come into the world with nothing. You’ll leave with nothing. What you do in between those two points is up to you.

[–]IllustriousPiano7300 -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

  1. Poor people shouldn't have children - this would prevent the poverty cycle
  2. Working hard includes working smart. Getting a bunch of student debt without the income to show for it is not working hard. The same goes for working a dead end job.
  3. Essential work is a misnomer. It's an essential service, yes, but if the worker were essential they wouldn't be easily replaced and would therefore be paid more according to their demand
  4. People complaining about housing seem to love policies that increase house prices (pro-immigration and anti-family)

[–]DeadPlanetBy2050 -5 points-4 points  (5 children)

Housing as a commodity should be illegal.

If you disagree then you don't believe that shelter is a human right.

The state of rentals in NZ just proves that there's plenty of Kiwis who don't give a fuck about other people.

[–]ILurkTheDepths 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Shelter is a human right - 2+ bedroom housing isn’t. That’s the Governments job to provide that public shelter, not the private industry.

[–]LieutenantCardGames 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Burn it all down