NZ 1st homebuyers are ScReWeD...

[RTM]

Good article in September North & South on housing and how NZ got to where it’s at.
“The Great Divide”
FP….terribly simplistic view of the problem. The consequences of poor housing outcomes are pretty dire for our society.
No easy fix….unfortunately for Jacinda.

[fungus pudding]

Good article in September North & South on housing and how NZ got to where it’s at.
“The Great Divide”
FP….terribly simplistic view of the problem. The consequences of poor housing outcomes are pretty dire for our society.
No easy fix….unfortunately for Jacinda.

I don't doubt the consequences of poor housing are as you say. That doesn't alter the undeniable fact that it is a supply problem. Of course that is a simplistic statement. I could write pages on why that is - but that changes nothing. Supply and demand - that is what it is.

[fungus pudding]

When I look at wealth I don't include my family home - I can't eat it.
Investable wealth is what counts for me.
So not as many millionaires in Auckland by my count.

Then the solution for you is to sell your home and invest the money. You'll be so much wealthier with this new-found investable cash.

[dobby41]

Then the solution for you is to sell your home and invest the money. You'll be so much wealthier with this new-found investable cash.

No, it won't because then I won't have a place to live.
I could try to sell down but my experience is that many people don't achieve that because the difference between what they have and what they want doesn't provide enough to be wealthy.
We do know that many sell down and buy a villa in a retirement village and have a few bob left for life's extras they desire.

So I'll stick with the house I have and use the return on the wealth I have accumulated as (my definition of) investments to live a rich and, hopefully, long life.

[Bjauck]

When I look at wealth I don't include my family home - I can't eat it.
Investable wealth is what counts for me.
So not as many millionaires in Auckland by my count.

For those who don't already own substantial equity in a house, then owning a house with today's valuations is being wealthy?

With the current highly inflated values, unmortgaged home owners may have the option of downsizing and investing or selling, renting and investing. Moreover for those who already own a house and then inherit other ones, that will be where the wealth may also amass.

[fungus pudding]

No, it won't because then I won't have a place to live.
I could try to sell down but my experience is that many people don't achieve that because the difference between what they have and what they want doesn't provide enough to be wealthy.
We do know that many sell down and buy a villa in a retirement village and have a few bob left for life's extras they desire.

So I'll stick with the house I have and use the return on the wealth I have accumulated as (my definition of) investments to live a rich and, hopefully, long life.

But you could rent leaving this pile of money, which previously wasn't part of your wealth, in the column that makes you rich. Magic. I'm surprised I've never thought of it myself.

[Aaron]

Good article in September North & South on housing and how NZ got to where it’s at.
“The Great Divide”
FP….terribly simplistic view of the problem. The consequences of poor housing outcomes are pretty dire for our society.
No easy fix….unfortunately for Jacinda.

Not a subscriber but any main points in the article. No finger pointed at a specific generation?

[artemis]

Good article in September North & South on housing and how NZ got to where it’s at.
“The Great Divide”
FP….terribly simplistic view of the problem. The consequences of poor housing outcomes are pretty dire for our society.
No easy fix….unfortunately for Jacinda.

Have quickly skim read only so far, but mentioning 3 things. First, there is a subtext - more money from the taxpayer. Secondly, there is no mention of DINKs. Thirdly at least some of the tsunami of data is cherry picked to support a narrative.

It's a long article, lots of numbers, many comments from activist organisations. Maybe they have not heard of DINKs.

[SBQ]

Have quickly skim read only so far, but mentioning 3 things. First, there is a subtext - more money from the taxpayer. Secondly, there is no mention of DINKs. Thirdly at least some of the tsunami of data is cherry picked to support a narrative.

It's a long article, lots of numbers, many comments from activist organisations. Maybe they have not heard of DINKs.

So the problem for home ownership is based on DINK situation? I mean society deems acceptable to own a house because they're DINKs and families with children simply can not afford to own?

I've known couples who would love to have children but have told me over the past 2 decades that they can not afford to have children. Before I knew it, she was past her age for having children and therefore they've defaulted into DINK world. Yes they paid a horrible cost getting into a home in that by the time they tried to have children, it was too late. If housing was more affordable, i'm certain they would have been in a house a decade earlier and had a good chance at family.

I dunno. The housing situation in NZ makes it very clear that wealthier families who own the house, basically set the tone for their next generation to own a house through inheritance. Some families have 1 child, some have 4. The latter would be an issue as the parent's home does not provide enough equity when the children have moved out. No surprise here as the more children = the more it costs.

I don't think there are any surprises in the N&S report. I'm a strong believer in pro choice. Don't blame the people. Blame the gov't for enabling people that created this housing problem.

[TeslaGod]

What's a DINK?