NZ 1st homebuyers are ScReWeD...

[fungus pudding]

What's a DINK?

You been under a rock since the sixties?

[TeslaGod]

You been under a rock since the sixties?

No I'm an 80s child, please enlighten me.

[fungus pudding]

No I'm an 80s child, please enlighten me.

Well as an 80s model you surely know google will answer your question. However to save you from such a strenuous task as typing, it's an acronym - double income - no kids.

[TeslaGod]

Well as an 80s model you surely know google will answer your question. However to save you from such a strenuous task as typing, it's an acronym - double income - no kids.

Yes I was a good looking child, thanks , always good to learn something new every day.

[artemis]

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? ......

It's a practical thing. Two incomes and shared expenses make it much more possible to save a house deposit. Happens all the time. It's called planning. And deciding to make sure the household has secure housing before adding to it.

Then there those who make different decisions.

[SBQ]

It's a practical thing. Two incomes and shared expenses make it much more possible to save a house deposit. Happens all the time. It's called planning. And deciding to make sure the household has secure housing before adding to it.

Then there those who make different decisions.

Of course 'dual incomes' help, after all that's how the banks assess couples when they go for a mortgage. However, the issue of DINKs is not the case of planning but rather, it's the case of having no other option. The price of the house has gone up so much that it strips of any ability for a couple to have children, thus creating a trend of the DINKs. As with my previous example, the couple I knew always wanted to have children in their plan. They were renting, and hoping they could save up enough for a deposit. At the end living in Auckland for over 10 years before getting into a house, it left them well scraping for coins. If houses did not rise so much, then they would have some extra 'safety' buffer of funds and the stability to have a family. But what I see now is those that are buying and are able to have children, they're doing so with the help of family inheritance. If not, well then I guess the banks make more money.

[artemis]

Thousands of first home buyers manage to borrow from the bank every month. Good for them. I guess at least some of them planned, saved, worked extra jobs, kept their expectations on the low side.

[iamaskier]

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.

Help me understand what you're saying here. Do you feel that a necessary DINK situation is an acceptable pre-condition for aspiring home ownership amongst NZ's general population?

While people are certainly entitled to those views, I really don't think they accurately "price in" the long term implications.

What happens when our best and brightest; teachers, nurses, police, hospo, retail, customer service reps etc... either leave for overseas or don't have kids because God forbid, they want the security of owning the roof over their head? As a society we'll be worse for it.

In my view, there's a twisted irony in all of this. As property owner I feel like i'm becoming more and more well off, but ultimately I'm just a part of a collective that is deteriorating...

[artemis]

Help me understand what you're saying here. Do you feel that a necessary DINK situation is an acceptable pre-condition for aspiring home ownership amongst NZ's general population? ....

That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that planning for home ownership while there are two incomes and shared expenses is rather more likely to result in home ownership than in life long renting in private or social housing. This is not new.

Feel free to disagree but suggest that first check out the examples and anecdotes in the N&S article, including which organisations have provided them and see if you think there is an agenda running. Ask yourself how many of the thousands of first home owners who buy each and every month were interviewed about how they did it. Apparently "according to one estimate, 70 per cent of first-home buyers need the Bank of Mum and Dad to help with a deposit" - we are not told who estimated this, or based on what.

[iamaskier]

That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that planning for home ownership while there are two incomes and shared expenses is rather more likely to result in home ownership than in life long renting in private or social housing. This is not new.

Feel free to disagree but suggest that first check out the examples and anecdotes in the N&S article, including which organisations have provided them and see if you think there is an agenda running. Ask yourself how many of the thousands of first home owners who buy each and every month were interviewed about how they did it. Apparently "according to one estimate, 70 per cent of first-home buyers need the Bank of Mum and Dad to help with a deposit" - we are not told who estimated this, or based on what.

Unfortunately not a subscriber so it appears I only get access to the first part of the article? (+ the summary provided by the Scoop). I can't comment on the potential agenda but regardless of whether or not there is one, it's clear that it's become more difficult to get on the property ladder. As to whether one thinks it's become "too difficult" on the whole, I guess is a matter of personal judgement. I think it has, and I'm worried about what that means for all of us, maybe you think it hasn't.

I see my mates (those who aren't on pretty good salaries) struggle; I see NZ rank amongst the worst for hosing affordability amongst the OECD (and well beyond multiples what the World Bank [or whoever it is] deems affordable); I read headlines about prices up another 30% in a year; I read articles about a young couple who finally "managed to buy a house in Morrinsville" and think - how tf have we enabled a situation where this is this newsworthy?

So to be honest, apart from journalistic integrity, I don't really think it makes much of a difference whether some stats in the article are from parties who may or may not have an agenda. We've got a problem and the writing is on the wall! Broadly speaking, I also don't think that this is that contentious even if you did happen to disagree. More contentious is how we go about fixing it.

Of course I agree that home ownership is more likely in a DINK situation. My interpretation of your posts on this (possibly incorrect) was that you were using this subset of the population as an example of "good planning" in terms of how home ownership is still achievable.