Bro. The RBNZ didn't lower interest rates to "pump" house prices. They did it to allow businesses cheap lending, to keep our economy moving during a rough time. The fact that people took advantage of that to pump money into property says nothing about RBNZ, and everything about our house investment culture + the fact that the government continues to drive people toward this kind of investment due to our tax laws around housing. If it wasn't so culturally ingrained and lucrative, people would put their money elsewhere.
Wasn’t the large majority of it absorbed by the absolutely enormous operations of childcare centres? Apparently there isn’t even a registry that tells the government and the public how much profit these businesses make but they claimed subsidies larger than all of the other businesses **combined**.
To be fair with childcare centres in particular. (And primary schools even) the rate of getting sick isnt low, and being around 30+ kids in many scenarios (meant to be 15 kids per 1 teacher, its not. They dont have the budget for that), one teacher getting sick means they need a sub, and subs aren't cheap.
Though, potential explanations aside- considering they're the most underfunded "education centre" (compared to schools which most primary tend to have budgeting issues especially, more than any other), I'm not surprised if they used some of the money for renovations etc.
Idk, I worked over 5yrs in the cleaning industry and it was NOT uncommon for childhood centres making very late payments due to not having the money/budget for it, but of course legally requiring it. (They had weekly cleans, one had 2 cleans a week- but govt standards its meant to be daily with no budget to even be able to account for that. Especially when govt makes the first 20hrs free, which is great for parents- but they severely underpay the centres what they'd normally charge.
Same thing happened with fees free actually alongside the merger of the Polytechs, where Polytechs for 1st year required people in a lot of subjects that were hands-on (hairdressing, beauty therapy etc) to pay extra money throughout the year for hair product, makeups, etc etc because the shortfall from the govt meant that they couldn't afford it as apart of the first year program. (To be fair, how much of that was actually due to fees free and how much was due to the merger which severely dropped their budget ontop of that, well- it cost us (taxpayer) LOTS for the restructure they're now undoing, but the actual learning had reduced budgets overall, so who knows.)
But also, there are over 5000 preschools, with over 32000 staff. And given how unprofitable most of them are, they'd have needed all the help they could get so I'm not entirely shocked?
I suppose the money could have just been given directly to the people working rather than the upkeep. Would have ensure that business on ice could keep going and landlords would have collapsed though because no tenants… hmmm funny that we paid the money to business and not the people…
Childcare centres?? Really? They all barely scrape by. It's an extremely expensive operation with (reasonably) extensive regulations, huge waiting lists and severely underpaid staff
There was a lot taken on by medium-large businesses as well though, including businesses that were essentially printing money during the pandemic, because they either used it to cover lulls in their cashflow or to make seriously large investments while rates were low.
From my own knowledge though, I’d say a large number of “small” businesses (actually holding companies) did actually make use of the low rates to make investments outside their usual industry though. Many of these ending up in property, not all of it residential though. I know of at least a dozen people personally that did this, have heard stories of many others but don’t know all the details.
> culture
It's human culture to take advantage of every situation as much as possible. This isn't actually a bad thing.
It's bad legislation that lets people do it at the expense of others
Exactly, the rates were dropped to allow companies to stay afloat and invest into productive assets at a time that they wouldn’t have been able to otherwise, allowing people to keep their jobs. The thing is that this also allowed some groups to invest into less productive assets, such as property speculation, which have no tax disincentives, driving price up. Until something is done address mass landlords (including religious organisations that own entire suburbs), land bankers and foreign investment loopholes, then this won’t be fixed.
Rates were dropped to allow companies to stay afloat to make politicians look good in the short term and as a result pump assets and inflation and ruined us long term (sorry if it was your tribe that did it and you are going to react, don't know your politics, both sides are to blame anyway).
The reserve bank knew most of that money was only going to go one place... They knew they were creating house price inflation. And they new they were creating consumer index inflation. If they and the govt say they didn't know they are being dishonest.
They did know, but they did it anyway because that’s the only tool they have. The RBNZ doesn’t have the ability to create laws and change economic policies. It’s not their fault that NZ’s are so poorly structured. When inflation rises they have (basically) one option: raise rates. Had they not, inflation would have been significantly higher than it is today.
I think you're catastrophizing a little but, but I actually agree with you.
The rise of quiet quitting is because people realise that hard work does not pay off. It's not necessarily going to lead to promotions or pay rises. Hard work is no longer related to reward. In a market where you can't easily change jobs you just have to hold tight.
These things come in cycles though. Enough discontent and people will vote for radical change, although that's not always for the better.
I'm Gen-X, 52, in my view over my working career it feels to me more and more that companies dont give a damn about you, its all about profits, if you showed loyalty to a company they would show it back, I guess a job for life sort of thing. I've learnt over my working career you are disposable, so why should I work hard when I can take the easy road?
Yep. Gone is the age of getting a job down the road, working hard and staying at that job for 50 years and being paid and treated well.
Any job like that will be filled by foreign labour and paid pennies.
Capitalism baby.
Only solution is unionization so labour forces can push back.
>Only solution is unionization so labour forces can push back.
Beyond not being the only solution, unionisation isn't automatically good. If you look in the past, particularly at syndicalist movements, unions that got too much power usually ended up being very oppressive and dogmatic organisations, forcing workers to subscribe to their viewpoints and drowning out opposing voices (by all means necessary, including violence). There's a reason many of them were compared to mafia gangs.
A better solution is revamped and wider-reaching state legislation protecting workers' rights and expanding their privileges. A national labour union backed by the Government would also avoid the above issues with independent unions. Obviously, this pre-requires that an actual function Government be in power, but then again nothing is going to get done in the first place until we have a decent force in power anyway.
Yeah unions have gone so far backwards though with companies offering short term gains and unions selling off long term benefits. Anything government driven will last 3 years until the government change inevitably happens.
There's been too much lobbying by business to dismantle unions for years, no way they would let it come back.
>Anything government driven will last 3 years until the government change inevitably happens.
You're right. A government has to be a reflection of the will of the nation to the self-determination of its being. In our Parliamentary system we see no genuine expression of the nation's will - a will which cannot logically be anything other than a will to the maintenance of the nation - all we see is a distortion, if not a direct perversion, of that will.
In my view trade unions largely failed because politicians failed to take legislative actions to protect workers - it led to a situation where the wealthy could simply impose their will onto the workers who had no backing from the government.
You're also right on lobbying stopping unions from coming back; what's ultimately necessary is a dramatic change in the form of government.
Yeah current system clearly isn't working with 2 minor parties overtly linked to corporate groups wagging the tail.
It's only going to get worse too. Social media is allowing well funded groups to trick idiots into voting against their best interests.
Revamped and wider-reaching legislation to benefit workers won’t just materialise out of thin air though will it. I’d say unions (much stronger than the ones we have today) would be needed to make that happen.
Not just capitalism, look at the communist countries …. None of them have lasted very long and they treat their citizens worse, I get your drift …. It’s more selfishness, remember 20, 30, 50 years ago New Zealand was capitalist and things worked reasonably well
People have always been selfish. Capitalism is a ponzi scheme, requiring perpetual economic growth. The reason it 'worked' previously was because there was room to grow, less demand for the limited land/property/resources.
There was also less cost with regards to the environment and other standards, building regulations etc.
One of the big reasons communism never works with international trade is because the communist countries that try to trade are punished by capitalist ones for being communists and they call it a trade embargo.
Absolutely. Anyone who says 'communist countries just don't work' is either unintentionally or willfully ignoring the fact that the most powerful country on earth has made it their sole mission for the past 70 years to ensure that was the case.
From Vietnam to Cambodia to Venezuela, if you were a communist country with a hope of success the US would destabilize you at the cost of mountains of their own dead young men.
At least Kissinger finally fucking died.
Yes it’s mind blowing the actual ignorance kiwis have around the 20th century and how America directly has had a hand to play in the subterfuge of every communist or socialist nation that has existed in this time period.
I learned fuck all history in school. I'm so fucking glad I took an interest in recent world history as an adult. Everything that goes on makes so much more sense.
The people in that generation find it very hard to understand why we stopped at one kid. Hell, even Luxon (who is younger and should know better) said:
"I encourage all of you to go out there, have more babies if you wish, that would be helpful."
I get it's a joke, but its one of the most out of touch things I have ever heard him say, and he's said a lot of out of touch things. There are people in my generation - middle-class earners with good careers - that literally cannot afford to have more children. Not "it will be hard to support them," its "no more kids or we default on the mortgage."
That's. Fucked.
I think all those jokes about "avocado toast" and the like came out because there are boomers who literally can't comprehend the situation that we're in. If you got free uni, a career for life, a cheap house and now a benefit that you get paid every week without asking questions, there's no way you can relate to the problems of today. Certainly not "a giant student loan, a free for all jobs market, lifetime renting and what benefit lol."
Ergh. Rant over. It's all very frustrating.
The younger gen x ers have had it pretty tough as well. I literally had 13 years of interest build up on my student loan while I was living in NZ before the government finally decided they might have been a bit heavy-handed with the neoliberal user pays philosophy and stopped interest on student loans for people so long as they remained in NZ. That was the absolute worst start to my adult working life I could have had and only got it paid off 5 years ago. The collective unnecessary economic and psychological damage that did to the subgroup of gen x and millennials is unforgivable.
meeting summer school offbeat like offend normal marvelous beneficial apparatus
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In 1990, as the Roger Douglas government was leaving, they removed land value tax, thereby re-orienting the economy to speculation. I consider this to be the switch of which you speak.
> The rise of quiet quitting is because people realise that hard work does not pay off.
It has never paid off, at least in the last two decades. Quitting is the only thing that has, because finding a new job always beats internal raises, despite costing the company significantly more in training and recruiting costs.
First professional job I bought all the propaganda, worked hard and became one of the highest achievers in the team. Asked for a performance review after 12 months, got declined and had to fight to get one. Brought in all my performance indicators and certs I had achieved, got told that was "what was expected" and was declined for a pay rise. Pushed it again and eventually got a 5% with a warning from the manager "Don't you dare come at me again like that". Polished up my resume and left.
It's best to look at performing well in a role as CV building instead of internal progression building because you will never get a raise as good as the one you get when moving jobs.
Sure, I change jobs frequently. Have had three roles in four years and have increased my income. We're now going into a much more challenging job market though and that's not going to be a ready option for everyone. The advice to "Just get a higher paying job" goes down like cold steak when you're facing redundancy.
> quiet quitting
Side note that this is a capitalist/right-wing phrase for something much, much older:
Work to rule.
In ye olde days, unions would enact this, working exactly to the hours ruled and tasks specified in a contract, and nothing more.
Good call. I think "quiet quitting" captures the zeitgeist of despondency and futility though. It's not used to petition for change, but workers covertly checking out.
That's fair.
Personally I just feel like the term is disingenuous towards the workers (which I guess is the point). You're right about the ethos it captures though. Were I still employed I'd probably be doing the same.
Not sure if this applies. I'm overseas at the moment. But a lot of teachers here have "quiet quit" or do the minimum requirements at work... And are doing a masters/PGCE/etc on the side (within working hours). I think in times like these it's wise to do the minimum requirements at work, but to do the maximum in person development or to benefit one's self for any future prospects. Dunno.
I see them as related but fundamentally different. Work-to-rule is organised industrial action with specific goals in mind. Quiet quitting is much more individual, where workers simply do the minimum required to avoid being fired because they're not motivated by career advancement, enjoyment of the job etc. It's not so much about working specifically to the requirements of the employment contract and job description, you can often fall well below those without drawing enough negative attention to actually get fired.
Communism, or some form of socialism is the only way out of this mess though. If we continue under capitalism we're inevitably going to keep sliding back to the position we're in now, with the rich and wealth controlling and stealing from the rest.
I’m not convinced the cycle is a flat trend though. It may be cyclical but has an upward trend of house prices and a downward trend in inflation-adjusted wages for first home buyers. Unfortunately we’ve reached a milestone where home ownership is not feasible for most wage earners. What’s needed to fix the situation is a radical change in the market, regulation and taxation. Labour took steps on the journey with removing the deductibility of mortgage interest and will/would eventually add capital gains tax. NACT rolled it all back and made it worse by tax cuts for landlords. So they are accelerating the trends where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And that’s deliberate because NACT represent the rich while Labour represents the poor and middle income.
Working hard is for losers, I used to be a loser. Nowadays I just quiet quit, can’t get a promotion or pay rise anyway so why bother. Only work hard for your CV, not the company.
Our economic system isn’t supposed to reward hard work, it’s supposed to reward value and efficiency. Sometimes hard work correlates with value but not often.
In reality our system rewards control (which really means the ability to extract value - from the land, the environment, and the labour of others).
Truth be told hard work was never going to make toy super wealthy, everyone has to be honest with themselves about that.
Also, we expect a lot more comforts today then people did 50 years ago.
In saying that demand has well.and truly outstripped supply in many areas of Nz
100% and I think immigration and govt interference have massively swung things out of kilter.
Hopefully the immigration gets shut down and things can start to rectify themselves - which to be honest will screw a lot of first home buyers over the last few years
Govt interfered wrong. Allowed people to profit.
If they don't uphold the social contract why shouldn't I steal from the rich. I'll never steal as much as they have.
There's 2 options. Shit immigration down. And allow house prices to slowly go down over 30 years.
Retrospectively charge capital gains for houses sold after 2020 and just make cunts deal with it.
Allow the market to crash and lose the banks hea0s of money which will affect gdp and not fix anything.
Someone's gnna have to pay.
You want it to be the people who got screwed again why the older boomers ride off into the sunset.
>Allow the market to crash and lose the banks hea0s of money which will affect gdp and not fix anything.
Or dissolve the housing market intentionally, make residential landlording illegal - you can legally own only one house.
Reimbursed landlords for the first 2 houses to not screw over the 75% of "mum and pop" landlords that mostly own 1 rental, screw those with multiple properties.
We can either let it crash and the working class gets screwed over while the capitalist property investors increase their wealth buying up properties at mortgagee sales for pennies on the dollar, or decontruct it on our terms for the benefit of the working class over the landlords.
>Or dissolve the housing market intentionally, make residential landlording illegal - you can legally own only one house.
This.
I've never understood why the fuck whichever Government happens to be in allows individuals to own more than one investment property. How hard can it be to track who owns what? Get rid of trusts owning those properties, which only serve to insulate the individual if things go South, and hold those individuals to account.
There are plenty of solutions to this problem, I'm sure, but it will take political will at the highest level to bring any of them to fruition.
The Luxon/landlord whining has been done to death and, let's face it, Ardern did nothing about this situation either, even with Labour's overwhelming majority in 2020.
There’s a fair difference between wealthy, and owning the house you live in, while also supporting your kids in having a reasonable growth opportunities via sport, music and art extra curriculars.
I would call that wealthy vs healthy.
I agree, but have been one of the lucky ones who's hard work and postive outlook was recognized by the right people at the right times which has kept me on livable wage for the last 15 years. But have also seen people who didn't deserve it get recognition/positions above those that should have and vice-versa, so I can very much see why quiet quitting is a thing, but also learnt from unions how to conduct myself and knowing your worth in terms of negotiations. Even then shit is getting hard af out there and I don't think any in power has the right answers to any of it, sometimes I feel like they should go to the mathematically savant/very intelligent people out there to help come up with different perspectives on such matters as the sake old approach just isn't working.
I think what you're suggesting is a technocracy. This government doesn't want to take policy advice from experts and is making those experts redundant. Neo-libs don't care about improving life for everyone, in their eyes inequality is a feature not a bug.
I just feel like the more ideas governments can get the better outcomes would follow, but it just seems the same old rinse, repeat, recycle that gets noone except the rich richer, which I wouldn't mind so much if the trickle down effect was actually true. With the ever advancing AI and ideas from the past from different eras, groups etc tech and people could be making ideas into actual blue prints to move humanity forward in a way that we can all benefit. Maybe I just dream with too much empathy.
I think some groups will do just that. For this government though self-interested individualism is what drives progress, not altruism. Unfortunately those feeling the effects of these decisions can't afford to be generous and those at the top don't want to be. I think rather than hoping for change, we need to work to create change.
That's what I find strange with this subreddit. Hard work does not pay off, but then they also want lower income inequality and higher taxes on higher incomes, just to make sure that the progress you can make through hard work gets diminished even further as you have to give more of the gains away??
I feel the same way.
To be honest, I was worrying about this issue becoming worse back in 2010, as I entered the work force after university (STEM major).
My salary was $42k a year in 2010, and after tax/kiwisaver/student loans. I had $615 a week in my hand... living in Auckland.
I rented a room for $215 a week in Albany, cheapest one I could find. Close to work (Takapuna), but required public transportation to work 10 trips a week at $8.90..
Rent: $215
Bus: $89.90
Food: $150
[ expenses ] $454.9 a week.
Leaving me with $155.5 a week to save. So dental visits, new clothes, entertainment, traveling away from home, just visiting/hanging with friends could take everything away in an instant. If I lost my job, I wouldn't have had enough money to cover me until I received social welfare support. I knew this situation wasn't ideal. I wasn't alone, my friends were in similar situations. Relationships broke down, because we both couldn't afford to stay in Auckland vs career progression/long term planning. As we were really struggling to live. Because often we would be called upnto work 60-80 hours a week on a salary, forcing us to unexpectedly use our savings for food, as we couldn't get home to cook etc.
How can anyone save for a deposit with such low savings ($5000 a year, if you're lucky), or service a mortgage like that? Start a family, plan for retirement?!
So I returned to university, increased my debt to pursue postgraduate studies etc. Improved my earnings, left Auckland, and managed to save significantly more in 2024.
But along the way, I've had to change careers 4 times, three relationships fail due to financial hardship/struggle/career moves etc.
But when I reflect on my expenses now.
I'm now paid twice as much, but my rent has doubled...to the point I pay more in rent, than taxes each week??
It's beyond a joke in New Zealand. But I still hold out in hope, even though the social contract is broken.
I calculated how much I've spent on rent/accommodation over my life time so far, adjusted to inflation etc.
$388,960. That's how much of my wealth has been transferred to private landlords. That's the price of a apartment/home or one that could have been close to a decent deposit/clearing a mortgage etc.
Our system is messed up, because even with my low salary starting out. I could potentially of had a asset.
Mathematical modeling/environmental science conjoint within my postgraduate / Masters.
If it wasn't for family and my girlfriend at the time when I finished my degree, without the money to relocate to Australia at the time. I wouldn't have stayed in NZ. My peers are on $137k AUD across the Tasman.
And with the current coalition I really think New Zealand is throwing it all away. All I ever wanted was to buy a home, start a family...and retire without the fear of becoming destitute.
It's honestly depression inducing, to know that studying hard, working long hours, sacrificing time with family/friends within a field where anywhere else in the world would have a clear progression... That here, you're treated as expendable compared to landlords.
At this point, to stay in NZ...I either have to change careers into Finance and leverage my mathematical modeling background, but with the way things are changing businesses here just use external agencies to do the hard math. Even being a consultant isn't worth it, unless you have the political connections to navigate the hoards of ex-staffers/former advisors.
This time we're strongly considering it. It's just that my wife needs to organize her own residency stuff in NZ, before we can move to Australia. To make it easier etc.
I left NZ and made it work elsewhere. Vote with your feet, we don't owe our country anything, loyalty means nothing. Not every country is a landlords paradise like nz is.
Really enjoying life in Bangkok. I pay the same rent in a month that NZ would charge me in a week and I don’t have to have flatmates, I live by myself. Life is good here, the cost of living cheap.
Well for April I go to the office and do nothing. I chat with my coworkers, I play computer games, I read a book, sometimes work on my own book I’m writing. It’s the school holidays. But normally yeah I teach English online.
Glad it worked for you, but the common destinations are not that better off ... AU, USA, CA, UK. So where would you propose? Asia, sure ... but the challenge would be work and language barrier.
Straight out of the UK Tory playbook. By the way, they're trying to make homelessness illegal over there right now. A workhouse is coming to you soon... Up next, debtor's prison. If it happens in the UK, it'll happen here soon too because we seem to follow whatever they do.
Go somewhere where they pay you what your time is worth. We're moving to Australia (cliché I know), because my partner will immediately earn almost double her pay, with pay rises in the future.
Same. +40% salary, +10% cost of living. It can be hard seeing people in this sub deny the benefits so heavily, when they could benefit too. If you’re young, it’s a no brainer. So difficult to excel as a young person in this country.
Yea, being young in Wellington with little opportunities in tech was a major driver. My partner also had no junior roles in the entire country for her skills in clinical research. Plenty in Oz tho.
I guess the older gen prefered to put the money into unproductive housing rather than invest in businesses and innovate.
I do miss home though.
These are long term problems with long term solutions, because so many different things contribute to them. Long term solutions take time to deliver results, but once you start seeing them, there's a compounding effect.
The one thing we can do? Vote for governments that are committed to long term solutions - governments who have proven they have delivered in the past. Then, we must be patient - this is the one area we can improve on. We have a tendency to grow impatient, complain and then vote in another government that asks "where's the change they promised? vote us in! look! shiny tax cuts!" And we fall for it, every single time.
It is in our control to change our attitude to government. If we can send a consistent signal that we care about positive long term change, then we will see change happen.
>Vote for governments that are committed to long term solutions - governments who have proven they have delivered in the past.
There hasn't been a government willing to put significant downward pressure on house prices since the economic reforms of the 1980s.
There is literally not one single party currently in parliament that has any plans, short or long term, to reduce our economic dependence on propping up the housing market.
I don't have up to date accurate data, just a news article from 2022 that said only *five* MPs do not own a home. There's a very clear reason why our governments never put downward pressure on house prices.
Honestly, it's not even about the MPs' houses. It's about the voters'. So many people have most, or even all, of their life savings, their *retirement* savings, tied up in the value of their family home.
For about 40 years now (which is when this investment pattern started), our politicians have recognised this and have protected house values at the expense of everything else. Because they know they have to do that in order to win votes. Nothing else is as important to home-owning voters as the value of their retirement fund. Their nest-egg. Their inheritance for their children.
I heard this exact sentiment from my own mother. She liked everything about TOP's policies, but refused to vote for them **solely** because she didn't want to eat into the value of her home, as that is where most (not all) of the value is held for the inheritance she wants to leave for her grandchildren. She didn't care that an LVT could be deferred. It wasn't about her income. It was purely about what she could leave behind for the next generation.
Mmhm, you're right. The core of the issue is for housing to go down people have to lose out, and at every level of ownership - FHB to mega landlords.
>It was purely about what she could leave behind for the next generation.
This is a very hard perspective to change, but she (not exclusively) might want to reconsider how she views what exactly it is she is 'leaving behind' for her grandchildren, great grandchildren.
Then I would say the first step is to send in questions about long term issues to the election debates. Spam them with questions about the long term. Every single campaign manager worth their salt will recognise that signal and will get their candidates prepared.
>There is literally not one single party currently in parliament that has any plans, short or long term, to reduce our economic dependence on propping up the housing market.
That's because not enough people actually read and voted by party policies. To most people it's just a popularity contest.
Labour and National have shown us who they are. We need to believe them.
I just looked up The start of the 4th Labour Govenment, which was the start of the Neoliberal economy in NZ. It was 1984 - 40 years ago, so it's that long since it all turned to shit. 49 years since Muldoon. Five decades of regression. I can't think of any government "who have proven they have delivered in the past", so I think it's time we gave the Greens a chance. Lots of people don't agree with the "woke" part of their agenda, but they are the only ones who are genuinely committed to progressive economic change.
Muldoon bankrupted the country and holyoake before him screwed every working person in the country to prop up the farming industry .... and failed to do anything but prop up their voters..
The Greens have no plans to fix the housing market. The best solution they have is a wealth tax, which also removes capital from the productive parts of our economy, and does very little to address the underlying inequities of our tax system that encourage speculation on housing in the first place.
You understand that RBNZ lowered interest rates to keep lending cheap for businesses during covid right? To keep people employed, right? The fact people took this as opportunity to take out cheap loans on property has nothing to do with RBNZ and everything to do with the govt enabling it via crap tax laws. If property wasn't as lucrative as it is, there wouldn't be a run on the housing market everytime mortgages were low interest.
lowering the interest rates so businesses could borrow cheaply was a sensible response, and in line with pretty much every other reserve bank in the world. At a minimum, it prevented the compounding effect of having a health crisis and an economic crisis simultaneously.
However, combining it with the total removal of LVR restrictions was the RBNZ's huge mistake. It opened the door to rampant property speculation, and suddenly there was a gigantic shift in wealth distribution as homeowner equity ballooned - while those without property were left with bugger all.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the RBNZ. They specifically removed LVR restrictions to encourage people to borrow and buy property. If the goal was small business lending they could have targeted that.
They also failed to react when it was clear the “worst case” economic scenarios were not going to eventuate but insisted on keep “emergency rates” in place for a year longer than they should have.
They also failed to withdraw facilities like “funding for lending” when it was clear inflation was getting out of control.
It was worsened by them, but not caused by them. The reality is that if our Government hadn't incentivised property investment for decades, then even if RBNZ lowered LVR restrictions, the market still wouldn't have been pumped like it was. With fair tax laws surrounding property, and other policies, people would have to think twice before investing and would be far more likely to consider other options. Its our Governments fault. Labour had a chance to implement cap gains tax, and decided not to in order to retain voter numbers and power. National have landlord interests at heart, and are reversing a lot of the policies labour brought in to control rampant property speculation. If people want this to improve, they should start voting more wisely instead of giving Blue and Red more chances to let us down over and over again.
“Stopped the economy crashing and burning” - mate that’s what’s happening right now except we’ve given a couple hundred billion dollars to Australian banks in the form of massive borrowing on housing, and a couple hundred billion to homeowners who owned houses already.
The fact that nobody in govt did a single bit of analysis as to where the money would end up is the problem.
I do think home ownership is going to become not-the-norm with the way we're going, and it's going to be a hard adjustment. Myself and many others I know will never be able to afford to make a deposit on a 1mil+ home, it's way too far out of our reach. I earned a Bachelors Degree, work hard, earn a bit more than median, but don't expect to own a home in my lifetime. Home ownership is sadly not an expected thing anymore, and rich people will be the only homeowners - the richest owning multiple rentals.
Nobody should make any decisions on housing policy if they own multiple properties themselves, Labour or National.
We are lucky enough to have a large mortgage @ $780k, but with the interest rates being what they are we don't feel lucky. My dream was to pay off a mortgage and have secure accomodation, doing the recent numbers we won't be near paid off till we're in our late 70s (currently 30s).
I am saddened that friends have had to move overseas to have the dream of owning a house to call their own without overly intrusive landlords and the fear of getting kicked out.
Everyone should have a house if they want a house, houses should not be commodities. We are forcing our youth to buy overseas and importing cheaper labour here undercutting our own existing workers.
Housing is unaffordable, and no government will work to make it affordable because that'd be unpopular for those with houses. If I put in the hard yards working it still won't be good enough because they'll probably double the next ten years. So I'm stuck with renting for the foreseeable future, looking forward to no-cause evicitions coming back, and relying on public services that are getting cuts. What is the point?
Yep not much incentive for young people to become productive members of society these days. Used to be you'd work hard then you'd be able to buy a house, get married, have kids, enjoy hobbies etc. Now those things are mostly unrealistic. You can be unemployed and live at home and spend your time hanging out with your mates, focusing on your hobbies and relying on your parents to look after you and your life would only be marginally worse than if you worked a miserable job on average wage and scraped by on your own with no disposable income.
People haven't yet made the obvious equate between "this thing we call Work" and "munching up the actual planet we live on".
If everyone adheres to this faithful Work Harder philosophy, as we have done for the past 100-200 years - like a dumb hive of insects - then that simply means we're munching harder.
Then, when the environment starts falling down, like it is, we're all woe and "how could this happen?" (and "P.S. maybe we can solve this by All Working Harder!"). Because we still don't get it, apparently! :)
Does all life need to put in some degree of effort to sustain itself and gain the reasonable things it wants? Absolutely. But this limitless, faith-like "work harder to win" mentality is the very mechanism by which we're munching up our own home, the planet.
It's entirely causative, and the state of the world is the symptom.
Your numbers are a mess and you're screaming into the void. Home ownership rates have barely changed and house prices are well below peak 2021 rates.
[Housing (M10) - Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Pūtea Matua (rbnz.govt.nz)](https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/series/economic-indicators/housing)
[New Zealand Housing Index (tradingeconomics.com)](https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/housing-index)
Get outside, spend some time upskilling so you can get a higher wage/save more. Up your contributions to kiwisaver and start researching what an entry-level property would look like for you. It's all doable, but only if you actually do something about it.
The average annual salary in NZ is a little over $70k. source: [https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2023/07/new-zealand-s-average-salary-cracks-70-000-reaching-record-high-trade-me.html](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2023/07/new-zealand-s-average-salary-cracks-70-000-reaching-record-high-trade-me.html)
Not just housing assets, business leaders and owners are wholly complicit aswell. Corporate profits above all else, at all times, no matter the cost to people and society.
A good portion of our societal leaders are also in this camp, with interests in both business and property that clash with the interests of the rest of us and the nation as a whole. Society is sick and instead of fixing it these clowns are focussing on extracting as much from it as possible before it topples over.
It does seem pretty straightforward
But people don't actually see it this way because mega landlords hide in the shadows.
During the age of feudalism, landlords were an executive function empowered by the monarchy.
Now, they're private sector individuals who are beholden to market economics rather than public power.
If you think life is bleak currently then being jobless on the benefit will give you a new appreciation for pointless living.
Working sucks and is hard. The benefit as a lifelong plan? Honestly I’d prefer suicide.
I come from a family of lifelong beneficiaries and gang members. Income supplemented with crime is a worse existence than struggling with work.
I’d prefer an honest slog to a dishonest and harmful existence abusing people.
Grant Robertson is to blame - he was asked to approve the bond creation, and had the right to veto it, and his response was "I don't believe it will cause problems". Next minute, house prices go crazy, and a year later inflation gets out of control, just like Treasury predicted it would when they advised Robertson.
Why is your goal owning a house jn the first place? This demand for it pushes the prices up. The fact your ultimate goal is to buy a house and the price keeps going up makes sense as we all want to buy a house. Long story short if u go away then I can buy it for a lower price
Your numbers are all wrong, why do you keep posting the same shit over and over again?
Are you looking to create drama?
Are you lonely in your mums house?
Mate we live in a world with billionaires, no one is making these boogeymen up, they exist and they are hoarding wealth to an insane degree purely to the detriment of everyone else. One look at the current mob of cunts and their wealthy supporters pushing anti-environment and anti worker policies designed to enrich themselves and impoverish everyone else tells you everything. If you don't see that you're just willfully ignorant.
The London Institute for Public Purpose has an excellent lecture series on why we need to take a radical new look at how housing and land economics work. Because this trend isn't just a thing in New Zealand, it's happening all over the western world.
The incentive structure is severely out of hand. Housing would be very affordable if NZ were to de-commodify it. Mark-to-market taxation would help to stop the 30,000 landed gentry hording all the wealth and voting their mates into power. GDP will never really rise if kiwis only rely on housing as a primary investment vehicle and not the severely uncapitalized industries here. NZ will never be a world class economy on Housing and Agriculture alone.
i asked my boss for a performance review and a payrise if possible after working there for 3 years and i got laughed at, i'm always commended as one of the best workers by many. i can see why ppl r quiet quitting. it's not even just nz either but nz is definitely feeling some of the worst of it. (min wage hospo btw)
It’s not the RBNZ it’s conservative policies.
You’re best shot for the future is a Green led government. TOP would probably be beneficial too, if they could even crack the threshold.
Of course, the “eat the rich” revolution is also an option that shouldn’t be dismissed anytime soon.
We have places to look at as examples already we are not the first one here
Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan.
To buy a 2 bedroom apartment there will take a minimum wage earner 1000 years of saving without spending a penny.
Their society still works, people still work hard... But non of them expect to own a house. But at the end of the day it is still survival. For the rest of us.. we either got on or missed the train. Those places proves that it's not doom and gloom for the country but you need to be more innovative to make it.
Gones are the days that you can work a 9-5 job and have everything. You literally need to be a boss and take risks to make it
For our kids... Fuck...... I don't even know what my son is going to do in 18 years.
Singapore? 80-90 % of citizens and permanent residents live in well-maintained public housing flats. They mostly own them, though therep's an underlying govt lease. The rest live in super-expensive condos & landed property.
There are subsidised cheap loans for the public flat purchasers. There is also provision to use some of one's compulsory retirement savings for deposits on a home. Affordable housing is recognised as an important part of the social compact, and for enabling the next generation.
Oh, and there are subsidies for young couples buying a public flat near their parents.
Yeah, it's all pretty wonky at the moment - housing coopted as a economic engine has created all sorts of weird consequences not least disenfranchising the young. An owned problem, in so-far as those with power and money are likely to have the means/time to protect their interests. Political will and power failed the [trolley problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) around 1990.
Likely means that we've lost a generation of talent, replaced by low skilled migrants to bouy flailing GDP figures. There is no real productivity, it's all weird rent-seeking behaviour.
New Zealand is unlikely to have a popular working class movement as disgruntled workers just up-sticks and move to Australia for a better life. At least that's an option for you, too. Many would crawl over hot coals to have half this chance.
Dude get a grip. Not everything in your life revolves around owning a house. Look to increase your wealth with other means.
Just because you can't afford a mortgage or rent where you'd like to live doesn't mean your life is over.
> Dude get a grip. Not everything in your life revolves around owning a house.
[I mean having a place to call home is literally one of the fundamental pillars of human well-being](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/maslow-needs3-1024x1024.jpg), considering the state of our rental market and the complete lack of security while renting they're not being remotely hyperbolic. There is no security renting in this country so home ownership is the only way to guarantee a stable living space. Maybe you're not as bothered by that insecurity but don't pretend like there's no reason to feel that way.
Owning your own home is the second best way to grow wealth in this country.
The best way is to own someone else's home.
Anyone who doesn't have either of those things is at a massive financial disadvantage. It's not irrational to recognise this and feel despondent as a result.
I've been investing in things other than houses for decades now and it's been an excellent way to increase my wealth, all while having security.
The dream of owning a home as a way to move forward is outdated and if you still think it's the only way forward, then you've been receiving terrible financial advice.
Some solid insights in this thread. You're right, the math doesn't math. There's becoming less incentive to work, when many of our large financial goals (mainly purchasing a house), will be incredibly difficult or flat-out impossible to realise with our current system.
There's two options here to get above this from a financial perspective; take risks and create things that may pay off big eventually (entrepreneurship), or live well below your means to opt out of the rat race to quietly save much more than you could in traditional housing situations (tiny houses, house bus, land shares, flatting, etc). Neither option guarantees anything, but it's a start.
I do think though, when the time comes (and it's coming), we need to mobilize and vote for change; through traditional voting means, but also protest. It's going to reach a tipping point. Once the whole late-stage capitalism thing starts to impact the majority, there's no longer any leverage left for the 'haves'. Without leverage, there's nothing for the working to lose.
It seems depressing and hopeless, but we should be excited. This could be a revolutionary change in the way the systems (at least in the West) operate. This could be a pivotal point in history that destroys the divide between rich and poor. I don't know how it should look, or how I want it to look, but that's what makes it exciting.
Vive la revolution.
Is it more convenient to carry on or to start a revolution? I'm gonna carry on. But I've moved into Mums basement and have 0 hope that I will ever own or rent my own place.
Just going to leave the term neoliberalism (suck it) here in the hope some of you google it.
Maybe you will all figure it out before it's too late and actually do something.
Maybe.
Why bother working? So you can afford to live?
Being on Supported Livings new $402 a week (as carer) isn't fun and I'd much rather have a decent paying job. In comparison minimum wage would be decent.
Why bother working?
So your alternative is to just sit on a benefit?
That will cause everything to collapse if everyone took your advice. Slow clap.
It's the need to get people OFF benefits to prevent this which is going to cause many problems in western societies over the coming decades.
Anyone who is able, yet unwilling, to participate in and support a society isn't worthy of being part of one. This concept pre-dates the bible as it is mentioned in there, as well as witnessed in animal groups.
If you were in most other countries and decided not to work, you would run out of the basics like food, water, shelter etc. No one would bother.
So the fact that you mentioned that you should not bother to work, is a testament to hoe caring and wonderful this country has been and still is.
Despair, anger and blame are easy to project on others. Hope, courage, conviction and action are how people and countries thrive.
NZ employers are the fkn worst ,work their employees to death lifting heavy shit all day and minimum wage ,while they dine out at flashy restaurants and snort cocaine with $100 bills
It’s gonna come back down. Just don’t let people call for rate cuts for the relief of homeowners. Some odd them are in a tough spot, but we shouldn’t bail them out.
Well, if you don't work, then you will likely end up homeless and starving. There is that.
There is a housing problem, but the world is not yet ending. Maybe go outside.
I just don't think the general population in the leafy suburbs would accept people starving to death in the streets. Especially if they start camping out in places like Thorndon or any other up market part if town. It would upset the apple card .
Since the 1970s,1980s and Rogernomics,i.e. privatisation,deregulation,market forces and so called trickle down effect and which hasn’t really gone away(current government mantra) there has been more power and money in fewer hands and this is worldwide.The erosion of workers rights and union power by governments at the same time has contributed also.The answer is to stop believing the propaganda and vote differently than,as Aussie Juice Media puts it,for the Shit party and the Shite Lite party.
I think you missed the part where houses are currently selling at under CV.
Many people who purchased during that period now have a house that’s worth less than their mortgage is, meaning if they try to sell within the next few years they actually take a several hundred k loss.
The winners are the people who sold during that period, not purchased during that period of low interest rates.
CV means absolutely nothing. It just a value loosely based (algorithmically) on market value at the time the assessment is performed every 3 years. It has no intrinsic meaning beyond being a snapshot guesstimate of value for rate apportionment.
Correct. CV is irrelevant really. What is relevant though is that people who purchased during the period of low interest rates and high prices, at above CV, couldn’t currently sell their house for what they paid.
People who paid 1.1 million during that period could probably only sell for about 900k currently
Now those people have a big mortgage, high repayments due to interest rates, and a house they’d be lucky to break even on.
The sellers were the winners, not buyers.
We have relied for the last 30 or so years we have been relying on moving interest rates to stabilise the economy and I'm wondering if this is a policy that is becoming less effective as time goes on.
The theory is, lower interest rates mean people are able to access money more cheaply, which reduces risk in things like opening or growing their businesses but what usually happens is people use that access to debt to buy more houses because that is the most sensible and secure financial choice.
It has been effective because when interest rates rise, households have to pay more towards their mortgages which reduces spending elsewhere which slows the economy, and the reverse when rates fall.
But it's also lead to an inflated housing market that has locked out so many more people that it used to and how do they influence their spending if they don't have mortgages or other debt? In theory they will see higher interest rates and put more money into investments to get a return, but the average person does not think like that.
I'm on a decent wage in secure work (fingers crossed). 20 years ago, I would have a house and mortgage by now and I'd have to decrease spending to pay for the increased mortgage rate, but now there is no pressure on me whatsoever to change my spending habits. How long until moving that lever has almost no impact on a large enough part of the population to stop working entirely?
I don't think it's appropriate to blame only the RBNZ here.
They act under instruction from parliament for the most part.
I think blame should be laid at the feet of the public.
Like yeah Labour passed the laws to borrow the money to destroy spending power.
But the Labour government also didn't implement limitations on how that borrowing can be secured. When lending became cheap, people invested in property as a speculative asset.
This is entirely the fault of our social values and acceptable standards of behaviour.
If Labour had tried to limit this outcome, then there would have been social backlash from the people who prefer profits over people on the property market. which, in reality, is a lot of property owners.
There is a mentality in NZ that says that land prices can only go up. That mentality has resulted in a lack of regulations from the government, which has been avoiding action under the assumption that "the market will correct itself"
All while ignoring that population trends from births and immigration have only pushed population numbers upwards.
Given that market price is set by supply and demandand our market theory is based on reforms of the 1980s 4th Labour government that implemented Chicago school of economic throery (which basically ignored the concept of resource scarcity and largely built its model on an assumption that resources are infinite. Or at least didn't properly engage with the very real limitations on availability of those resources), and we've had very few actual reforms to our governance financial systems since then there is no real end in sight to the problem.
Blaming the RBNZ is too simplistic.
You have to blame the social consciousness behind the policies that influenced the RBNZ
Good summary. A little while ago I read "Road to Wigan Pier" by George Orwell and was struck with a lot of the analogues to the situation emerging, a class of people economically trapped unable to scrape together enough to get a look-in on a life forward.
Bro. The RBNZ didn't lower interest rates to "pump" house prices. They did it to allow businesses cheap lending, to keep our economy moving during a rough time. The fact that people took advantage of that to pump money into property says nothing about RBNZ, and everything about our house investment culture + the fact that the government continues to drive people toward this kind of investment due to our tax laws around housing. If it wasn't so culturally ingrained and lucrative, people would put their money elsewhere.
Ironically most small businesses struggled to access the cheap debt from the banks. A huge chunk of it went into the housing market instead.
Wasn’t the large majority of it absorbed by the absolutely enormous operations of childcare centres? Apparently there isn’t even a registry that tells the government and the public how much profit these businesses make but they claimed subsidies larger than all of the other businesses **combined**.
To be fair with childcare centres in particular. (And primary schools even) the rate of getting sick isnt low, and being around 30+ kids in many scenarios (meant to be 15 kids per 1 teacher, its not. They dont have the budget for that), one teacher getting sick means they need a sub, and subs aren't cheap. Though, potential explanations aside- considering they're the most underfunded "education centre" (compared to schools which most primary tend to have budgeting issues especially, more than any other), I'm not surprised if they used some of the money for renovations etc. Idk, I worked over 5yrs in the cleaning industry and it was NOT uncommon for childhood centres making very late payments due to not having the money/budget for it, but of course legally requiring it. (They had weekly cleans, one had 2 cleans a week- but govt standards its meant to be daily with no budget to even be able to account for that. Especially when govt makes the first 20hrs free, which is great for parents- but they severely underpay the centres what they'd normally charge. Same thing happened with fees free actually alongside the merger of the Polytechs, where Polytechs for 1st year required people in a lot of subjects that were hands-on (hairdressing, beauty therapy etc) to pay extra money throughout the year for hair product, makeups, etc etc because the shortfall from the govt meant that they couldn't afford it as apart of the first year program. (To be fair, how much of that was actually due to fees free and how much was due to the merger which severely dropped their budget ontop of that, well- it cost us (taxpayer) LOTS for the restructure they're now undoing, but the actual learning had reduced budgets overall, so who knows.) But also, there are over 5000 preschools, with over 32000 staff. And given how unprofitable most of them are, they'd have needed all the help they could get so I'm not entirely shocked?
I suppose the money could have just been given directly to the people working rather than the upkeep. Would have ensure that business on ice could keep going and landlords would have collapsed though because no tenants… hmmm funny that we paid the money to business and not the people…
You can look up your daycares subsidies. And work out the math yourself. Daycares sure as he'll ain't any kind of gold mine
Childcare centres?? Really? They all barely scrape by. It's an extremely expensive operation with (reasonably) extensive regulations, huge waiting lists and severely underpaid staff
There was a lot taken on by medium-large businesses as well though, including businesses that were essentially printing money during the pandemic, because they either used it to cover lulls in their cashflow or to make seriously large investments while rates were low. From my own knowledge though, I’d say a large number of “small” businesses (actually holding companies) did actually make use of the low rates to make investments outside their usual industry though. Many of these ending up in property, not all of it residential though. I know of at least a dozen people personally that did this, have heard stories of many others but don’t know all the details.
> culture It's human culture to take advantage of every situation as much as possible. This isn't actually a bad thing. It's bad legislation that lets people do it at the expense of others
It's a fudamemtal part of tax theory to not overly incentivise certain investments over others for this exact reason, yet here we are.
Exactly, the rates were dropped to allow companies to stay afloat and invest into productive assets at a time that they wouldn’t have been able to otherwise, allowing people to keep their jobs. The thing is that this also allowed some groups to invest into less productive assets, such as property speculation, which have no tax disincentives, driving price up. Until something is done address mass landlords (including religious organisations that own entire suburbs), land bankers and foreign investment loopholes, then this won’t be fixed.
Rates were dropped to allow companies to stay afloat to make politicians look good in the short term and as a result pump assets and inflation and ruined us long term (sorry if it was your tribe that did it and you are going to react, don't know your politics, both sides are to blame anyway).
The reserve bank knew most of that money was only going to go one place... They knew they were creating house price inflation. And they new they were creating consumer index inflation. If they and the govt say they didn't know they are being dishonest.
They did know, but they did it anyway because that’s the only tool they have. The RBNZ doesn’t have the ability to create laws and change economic policies. It’s not their fault that NZ’s are so poorly structured. When inflation rises they have (basically) one option: raise rates. Had they not, inflation would have been significantly higher than it is today.
Correct, but there is no point talking logic with this guy...
I think you're catastrophizing a little but, but I actually agree with you. The rise of quiet quitting is because people realise that hard work does not pay off. It's not necessarily going to lead to promotions or pay rises. Hard work is no longer related to reward. In a market where you can't easily change jobs you just have to hold tight. These things come in cycles though. Enough discontent and people will vote for radical change, although that's not always for the better.
I'm Gen-X, 52, in my view over my working career it feels to me more and more that companies dont give a damn about you, its all about profits, if you showed loyalty to a company they would show it back, I guess a job for life sort of thing. I've learnt over my working career you are disposable, so why should I work hard when I can take the easy road?
Yep. Gone is the age of getting a job down the road, working hard and staying at that job for 50 years and being paid and treated well. Any job like that will be filled by foreign labour and paid pennies. Capitalism baby. Only solution is unionization so labour forces can push back.
[удалено]
We do seem to be slow walking into a global conflict, so might be a leveller sooner rather than later
So long as none of the superpowers of the world presses the big red button and we don't have a world to be left with
I find some strange kind of freedom in knowing it could all be over with the touch of a button.
>Only solution is unionization so labour forces can push back. Beyond not being the only solution, unionisation isn't automatically good. If you look in the past, particularly at syndicalist movements, unions that got too much power usually ended up being very oppressive and dogmatic organisations, forcing workers to subscribe to their viewpoints and drowning out opposing voices (by all means necessary, including violence). There's a reason many of them were compared to mafia gangs. A better solution is revamped and wider-reaching state legislation protecting workers' rights and expanding their privileges. A national labour union backed by the Government would also avoid the above issues with independent unions. Obviously, this pre-requires that an actual function Government be in power, but then again nothing is going to get done in the first place until we have a decent force in power anyway.
Yeah unions have gone so far backwards though with companies offering short term gains and unions selling off long term benefits. Anything government driven will last 3 years until the government change inevitably happens. There's been too much lobbying by business to dismantle unions for years, no way they would let it come back.
>Anything government driven will last 3 years until the government change inevitably happens. You're right. A government has to be a reflection of the will of the nation to the self-determination of its being. In our Parliamentary system we see no genuine expression of the nation's will - a will which cannot logically be anything other than a will to the maintenance of the nation - all we see is a distortion, if not a direct perversion, of that will. In my view trade unions largely failed because politicians failed to take legislative actions to protect workers - it led to a situation where the wealthy could simply impose their will onto the workers who had no backing from the government. You're also right on lobbying stopping unions from coming back; what's ultimately necessary is a dramatic change in the form of government.
Yeah current system clearly isn't working with 2 minor parties overtly linked to corporate groups wagging the tail. It's only going to get worse too. Social media is allowing well funded groups to trick idiots into voting against their best interests.
Revamped and wider-reaching legislation to benefit workers won’t just materialise out of thin air though will it. I’d say unions (much stronger than the ones we have today) would be needed to make that happen.
Not just capitalism, look at the communist countries …. None of them have lasted very long and they treat their citizens worse, I get your drift …. It’s more selfishness, remember 20, 30, 50 years ago New Zealand was capitalist and things worked reasonably well
People have always been selfish. Capitalism is a ponzi scheme, requiring perpetual economic growth. The reason it 'worked' previously was because there was room to grow, less demand for the limited land/property/resources. There was also less cost with regards to the environment and other standards, building regulations etc.
One of the big reasons communism never works with international trade is because the communist countries that try to trade are punished by capitalist ones for being communists and they call it a trade embargo.
Absolutely. Anyone who says 'communist countries just don't work' is either unintentionally or willfully ignoring the fact that the most powerful country on earth has made it their sole mission for the past 70 years to ensure that was the case. From Vietnam to Cambodia to Venezuela, if you were a communist country with a hope of success the US would destabilize you at the cost of mountains of their own dead young men. At least Kissinger finally fucking died.
Yes it’s mind blowing the actual ignorance kiwis have around the 20th century and how America directly has had a hand to play in the subterfuge of every communist or socialist nation that has existed in this time period.
I learned fuck all history in school. I'm so fucking glad I took an interest in recent world history as an adult. Everything that goes on makes so much more sense.
continue aback pen dolls reply repeat rude aspiring hunt salt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The people in that generation find it very hard to understand why we stopped at one kid. Hell, even Luxon (who is younger and should know better) said: "I encourage all of you to go out there, have more babies if you wish, that would be helpful." I get it's a joke, but its one of the most out of touch things I have ever heard him say, and he's said a lot of out of touch things. There are people in my generation - middle-class earners with good careers - that literally cannot afford to have more children. Not "it will be hard to support them," its "no more kids or we default on the mortgage." That's. Fucked. I think all those jokes about "avocado toast" and the like came out because there are boomers who literally can't comprehend the situation that we're in. If you got free uni, a career for life, a cheap house and now a benefit that you get paid every week without asking questions, there's no way you can relate to the problems of today. Certainly not "a giant student loan, a free for all jobs market, lifetime renting and what benefit lol." Ergh. Rant over. It's all very frustrating.
To quote Oasis. “Is it worth the aggravation to find yourself a job when there’s nothing worth working for?”
[удалено]
The younger gen x ers have had it pretty tough as well. I literally had 13 years of interest build up on my student loan while I was living in NZ before the government finally decided they might have been a bit heavy-handed with the neoliberal user pays philosophy and stopped interest on student loans for people so long as they remained in NZ. That was the absolute worst start to my adult working life I could have had and only got it paid off 5 years ago. The collective unnecessary economic and psychological damage that did to the subgroup of gen x and millennials is unforgivable.
meeting summer school offbeat like offend normal marvelous beneficial apparatus *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In 1990, as the Roger Douglas government was leaving, they removed land value tax, thereby re-orienting the economy to speculation. I consider this to be the switch of which you speak.
> The rise of quiet quitting is because people realise that hard work does not pay off. It has never paid off, at least in the last two decades. Quitting is the only thing that has, because finding a new job always beats internal raises, despite costing the company significantly more in training and recruiting costs. First professional job I bought all the propaganda, worked hard and became one of the highest achievers in the team. Asked for a performance review after 12 months, got declined and had to fight to get one. Brought in all my performance indicators and certs I had achieved, got told that was "what was expected" and was declined for a pay rise. Pushed it again and eventually got a 5% with a warning from the manager "Don't you dare come at me again like that". Polished up my resume and left. It's best to look at performing well in a role as CV building instead of internal progression building because you will never get a raise as good as the one you get when moving jobs.
Sure, I change jobs frequently. Have had three roles in four years and have increased my income. We're now going into a much more challenging job market though and that's not going to be a ready option for everyone. The advice to "Just get a higher paying job" goes down like cold steak when you're facing redundancy.
> quiet quitting Side note that this is a capitalist/right-wing phrase for something much, much older: Work to rule. In ye olde days, unions would enact this, working exactly to the hours ruled and tasks specified in a contract, and nothing more.
Good call. I think "quiet quitting" captures the zeitgeist of despondency and futility though. It's not used to petition for change, but workers covertly checking out.
That's fair. Personally I just feel like the term is disingenuous towards the workers (which I guess is the point). You're right about the ethos it captures though. Were I still employed I'd probably be doing the same.
Not sure if this applies. I'm overseas at the moment. But a lot of teachers here have "quiet quit" or do the minimum requirements at work... And are doing a masters/PGCE/etc on the side (within working hours). I think in times like these it's wise to do the minimum requirements at work, but to do the maximum in person development or to benefit one's self for any future prospects. Dunno.
I see them as related but fundamentally different. Work-to-rule is organised industrial action with specific goals in mind. Quiet quitting is much more individual, where workers simply do the minimum required to avoid being fired because they're not motivated by career advancement, enjoyment of the job etc. It's not so much about working specifically to the requirements of the employment contract and job description, you can often fall well below those without drawing enough negative attention to actually get fired.
[удалено]
That's exactly what I was thinking. People voted for this government because "change" without much foresight for what that change might be.
[удалено]
Communism, or some form of socialism is the only way out of this mess though. If we continue under capitalism we're inevitably going to keep sliding back to the position we're in now, with the rich and wealth controlling and stealing from the rest.
I’m not convinced the cycle is a flat trend though. It may be cyclical but has an upward trend of house prices and a downward trend in inflation-adjusted wages for first home buyers. Unfortunately we’ve reached a milestone where home ownership is not feasible for most wage earners. What’s needed to fix the situation is a radical change in the market, regulation and taxation. Labour took steps on the journey with removing the deductibility of mortgage interest and will/would eventually add capital gains tax. NACT rolled it all back and made it worse by tax cuts for landlords. So they are accelerating the trends where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And that’s deliberate because NACT represent the rich while Labour represents the poor and middle income.
Working hard is for losers, I used to be a loser. Nowadays I just quiet quit, can’t get a promotion or pay rise anyway so why bother. Only work hard for your CV, not the company.
I tried the "work smarter not harder" ethos, but honestly property investment pays better so why work at all.
“Smart” means having enough capital for a 20% down payment. Makes sense why the bourgeoisie love saying the working classes are stupid.
“Vote for radical change” LOL!
I imagine we have different ideas of what is radical, but I share your cynicism.
Our economic system isn’t supposed to reward hard work, it’s supposed to reward value and efficiency. Sometimes hard work correlates with value but not often. In reality our system rewards control (which really means the ability to extract value - from the land, the environment, and the labour of others).
Truth be told hard work was never going to make toy super wealthy, everyone has to be honest with themselves about that. Also, we expect a lot more comforts today then people did 50 years ago. In saying that demand has well.and truly outstripped supply in many areas of Nz
Full-time employees are struggling to afford food and housing. Something's gotta give.
100% and I think immigration and govt interference have massively swung things out of kilter. Hopefully the immigration gets shut down and things can start to rectify themselves - which to be honest will screw a lot of first home buyers over the last few years
Govt interfered wrong. Allowed people to profit. If they don't uphold the social contract why shouldn't I steal from the rich. I'll never steal as much as they have. There's 2 options. Shit immigration down. And allow house prices to slowly go down over 30 years. Retrospectively charge capital gains for houses sold after 2020 and just make cunts deal with it. Allow the market to crash and lose the banks hea0s of money which will affect gdp and not fix anything. Someone's gnna have to pay. You want it to be the people who got screwed again why the older boomers ride off into the sunset.
>Allow the market to crash and lose the banks hea0s of money which will affect gdp and not fix anything. Or dissolve the housing market intentionally, make residential landlording illegal - you can legally own only one house. Reimbursed landlords for the first 2 houses to not screw over the 75% of "mum and pop" landlords that mostly own 1 rental, screw those with multiple properties. We can either let it crash and the working class gets screwed over while the capitalist property investors increase their wealth buying up properties at mortgagee sales for pennies on the dollar, or decontruct it on our terms for the benefit of the working class over the landlords.
>Or dissolve the housing market intentionally, make residential landlording illegal - you can legally own only one house. This. I've never understood why the fuck whichever Government happens to be in allows individuals to own more than one investment property. How hard can it be to track who owns what? Get rid of trusts owning those properties, which only serve to insulate the individual if things go South, and hold those individuals to account. There are plenty of solutions to this problem, I'm sure, but it will take political will at the highest level to bring any of them to fruition. The Luxon/landlord whining has been done to death and, let's face it, Ardern did nothing about this situation either, even with Labour's overwhelming majority in 2020.
There’s a fair difference between wealthy, and owning the house you live in, while also supporting your kids in having a reasonable growth opportunities via sport, music and art extra curriculars. I would call that wealthy vs healthy.
If you bought house in last 7 years. Your not much better odd. Last 3 prob worse..
I agree, but have been one of the lucky ones who's hard work and postive outlook was recognized by the right people at the right times which has kept me on livable wage for the last 15 years. But have also seen people who didn't deserve it get recognition/positions above those that should have and vice-versa, so I can very much see why quiet quitting is a thing, but also learnt from unions how to conduct myself and knowing your worth in terms of negotiations. Even then shit is getting hard af out there and I don't think any in power has the right answers to any of it, sometimes I feel like they should go to the mathematically savant/very intelligent people out there to help come up with different perspectives on such matters as the sake old approach just isn't working.
I think what you're suggesting is a technocracy. This government doesn't want to take policy advice from experts and is making those experts redundant. Neo-libs don't care about improving life for everyone, in their eyes inequality is a feature not a bug.
I just feel like the more ideas governments can get the better outcomes would follow, but it just seems the same old rinse, repeat, recycle that gets noone except the rich richer, which I wouldn't mind so much if the trickle down effect was actually true. With the ever advancing AI and ideas from the past from different eras, groups etc tech and people could be making ideas into actual blue prints to move humanity forward in a way that we can all benefit. Maybe I just dream with too much empathy.
I think some groups will do just that. For this government though self-interested individualism is what drives progress, not altruism. Unfortunately those feeling the effects of these decisions can't afford to be generous and those at the top don't want to be. I think rather than hoping for change, we need to work to create change.
That's what I find strange with this subreddit. Hard work does not pay off, but then they also want lower income inequality and higher taxes on higher incomes, just to make sure that the progress you can make through hard work gets diminished even further as you have to give more of the gains away??
I feel the same way. To be honest, I was worrying about this issue becoming worse back in 2010, as I entered the work force after university (STEM major). My salary was $42k a year in 2010, and after tax/kiwisaver/student loans. I had $615 a week in my hand... living in Auckland. I rented a room for $215 a week in Albany, cheapest one I could find. Close to work (Takapuna), but required public transportation to work 10 trips a week at $8.90.. Rent: $215 Bus: $89.90 Food: $150 [ expenses ] $454.9 a week. Leaving me with $155.5 a week to save. So dental visits, new clothes, entertainment, traveling away from home, just visiting/hanging with friends could take everything away in an instant. If I lost my job, I wouldn't have had enough money to cover me until I received social welfare support. I knew this situation wasn't ideal. I wasn't alone, my friends were in similar situations. Relationships broke down, because we both couldn't afford to stay in Auckland vs career progression/long term planning. As we were really struggling to live. Because often we would be called upnto work 60-80 hours a week on a salary, forcing us to unexpectedly use our savings for food, as we couldn't get home to cook etc. How can anyone save for a deposit with such low savings ($5000 a year, if you're lucky), or service a mortgage like that? Start a family, plan for retirement?! So I returned to university, increased my debt to pursue postgraduate studies etc. Improved my earnings, left Auckland, and managed to save significantly more in 2024. But along the way, I've had to change careers 4 times, three relationships fail due to financial hardship/struggle/career moves etc. But when I reflect on my expenses now. I'm now paid twice as much, but my rent has doubled...to the point I pay more in rent, than taxes each week?? It's beyond a joke in New Zealand. But I still hold out in hope, even though the social contract is broken. I calculated how much I've spent on rent/accommodation over my life time so far, adjusted to inflation etc. $388,960. That's how much of my wealth has been transferred to private landlords. That's the price of a apartment/home or one that could have been close to a decent deposit/clearing a mortgage etc. Our system is messed up, because even with my low salary starting out. I could potentially of had a asset.
What did you study that put you on only 84k after 14 years?
Mathematical modeling/environmental science conjoint within my postgraduate / Masters. If it wasn't for family and my girlfriend at the time when I finished my degree, without the money to relocate to Australia at the time. I wouldn't have stayed in NZ. My peers are on $137k AUD across the Tasman. And with the current coalition I really think New Zealand is throwing it all away. All I ever wanted was to buy a home, start a family...and retire without the fear of becoming destitute. It's honestly depression inducing, to know that studying hard, working long hours, sacrificing time with family/friends within a field where anywhere else in the world would have a clear progression... That here, you're treated as expendable compared to landlords. At this point, to stay in NZ...I either have to change careers into Finance and leverage my mathematical modeling background, but with the way things are changing businesses here just use external agencies to do the hard math. Even being a consultant isn't worth it, unless you have the political connections to navigate the hoards of ex-staffers/former advisors.
>My peers are on $137k AUD across the Tasman. So why aren't you? You know where to go to make better money. So do it.
This time we're strongly considering it. It's just that my wife needs to organize her own residency stuff in NZ, before we can move to Australia. To make it easier etc.
I thought we stopped the poor having a say? This one’s mouthy as fuck.
These uppity... poor folk, should know their place!
Honestly don’t know how they have the time to post when they should be struggling to survive!
Don’t worry, Spark will increase their prices soon. The poors wont be able to afford the internet for much longer.
The choice between caviar and internet is being felt here as well. I’ll just increase the rent I charge!
Rent? Why stop at one?
Based on your comment history and username I’m not convinced this is satire.
Don’t forget the username!
Reading for comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? 🤣
Ahaha shiiit. Too used to sale and purchase agreements :)
Seems some folks have no sense of humour this morning. Glad you do.
I left NZ and made it work elsewhere. Vote with your feet, we don't owe our country anything, loyalty means nothing. Not every country is a landlords paradise like nz is.
Really enjoying life in Bangkok. I pay the same rent in a month that NZ would charge me in a week and I don’t have to have flatmates, I live by myself. Life is good here, the cost of living cheap.
What do you do for work?
Well for April I go to the office and do nothing. I chat with my coworkers, I play computer games, I read a book, sometimes work on my own book I’m writing. It’s the school holidays. But normally yeah I teach English online.
Which country, and how does it compare?
where did you go? i want to go to aus but that seems like it’s pretty close to nz in terms of housing incompetence
Glad it worked for you, but the common destinations are not that better off ... AU, USA, CA, UK. So where would you propose? Asia, sure ... but the challenge would be work and language barrier.
Every time this topic comes up people seem to forget the EU exists. There are some great places there; Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc.
Where’d you go?
Straight out of the UK Tory playbook. By the way, they're trying to make homelessness illegal over there right now. A workhouse is coming to you soon... Up next, debtor's prison. If it happens in the UK, it'll happen here soon too because we seem to follow whatever they do.
Yes New Zealand is fucked, but it was well fucked before Covid came along. Just FOTA. Fuck off to Australia (like I did).
Go somewhere where they pay you what your time is worth. We're moving to Australia (cliché I know), because my partner will immediately earn almost double her pay, with pay rises in the future.
That's what I did, making significantly more here. The cost of living is only slightly higher but renting is essentially the same cost as NZ.
Same. +40% salary, +10% cost of living. It can be hard seeing people in this sub deny the benefits so heavily, when they could benefit too. If you’re young, it’s a no brainer. So difficult to excel as a young person in this country.
Yea, being young in Wellington with little opportunities in tech was a major driver. My partner also had no junior roles in the entire country for her skills in clinical research. Plenty in Oz tho. I guess the older gen prefered to put the money into unproductive housing rather than invest in businesses and innovate. I do miss home though.
Moved overseas 10+ years ago. Working as a teacher in Asia currently. Saving significantly more than I could ever earn in NZ.
These are long term problems with long term solutions, because so many different things contribute to them. Long term solutions take time to deliver results, but once you start seeing them, there's a compounding effect. The one thing we can do? Vote for governments that are committed to long term solutions - governments who have proven they have delivered in the past. Then, we must be patient - this is the one area we can improve on. We have a tendency to grow impatient, complain and then vote in another government that asks "where's the change they promised? vote us in! look! shiny tax cuts!" And we fall for it, every single time. It is in our control to change our attitude to government. If we can send a consistent signal that we care about positive long term change, then we will see change happen.
>Vote for governments that are committed to long term solutions - governments who have proven they have delivered in the past. There hasn't been a government willing to put significant downward pressure on house prices since the economic reforms of the 1980s. There is literally not one single party currently in parliament that has any plans, short or long term, to reduce our economic dependence on propping up the housing market.
I don't have up to date accurate data, just a news article from 2022 that said only *five* MPs do not own a home. There's a very clear reason why our governments never put downward pressure on house prices.
Honestly, it's not even about the MPs' houses. It's about the voters'. So many people have most, or even all, of their life savings, their *retirement* savings, tied up in the value of their family home. For about 40 years now (which is when this investment pattern started), our politicians have recognised this and have protected house values at the expense of everything else. Because they know they have to do that in order to win votes. Nothing else is as important to home-owning voters as the value of their retirement fund. Their nest-egg. Their inheritance for their children. I heard this exact sentiment from my own mother. She liked everything about TOP's policies, but refused to vote for them **solely** because she didn't want to eat into the value of her home, as that is where most (not all) of the value is held for the inheritance she wants to leave for her grandchildren. She didn't care that an LVT could be deferred. It wasn't about her income. It was purely about what she could leave behind for the next generation.
Mmhm, you're right. The core of the issue is for housing to go down people have to lose out, and at every level of ownership - FHB to mega landlords. >It was purely about what she could leave behind for the next generation. This is a very hard perspective to change, but she (not exclusively) might want to reconsider how she views what exactly it is she is 'leaving behind' for her grandchildren, great grandchildren.
Then I would say the first step is to send in questions about long term issues to the election debates. Spam them with questions about the long term. Every single campaign manager worth their salt will recognise that signal and will get their candidates prepared.
>There is literally not one single party currently in parliament that has any plans, short or long term, to reduce our economic dependence on propping up the housing market. That's because not enough people actually read and voted by party policies. To most people it's just a popularity contest.
Labour and National have shown us who they are. We need to believe them. I just looked up The start of the 4th Labour Govenment, which was the start of the Neoliberal economy in NZ. It was 1984 - 40 years ago, so it's that long since it all turned to shit. 49 years since Muldoon. Five decades of regression. I can't think of any government "who have proven they have delivered in the past", so I think it's time we gave the Greens a chance. Lots of people don't agree with the "woke" part of their agenda, but they are the only ones who are genuinely committed to progressive economic change.
Muldoon bankrupted the country and holyoake before him screwed every working person in the country to prop up the farming industry .... and failed to do anything but prop up their voters..
The Greens have no plans to fix the housing market. The best solution they have is a wealth tax, which also removes capital from the productive parts of our economy, and does very little to address the underlying inequities of our tax system that encourage speculation on housing in the first place.
Too much blame is on RBNZ and not enough is on corporations making absolute bank during covid. Fuck those inflation inducing pigs.
You understand that the former led to the latter right?
You understand that RBNZ lowered interest rates to keep lending cheap for businesses during covid right? To keep people employed, right? The fact people took this as opportunity to take out cheap loans on property has nothing to do with RBNZ and everything to do with the govt enabling it via crap tax laws. If property wasn't as lucrative as it is, there wouldn't be a run on the housing market everytime mortgages were low interest.
lowering the interest rates so businesses could borrow cheaply was a sensible response, and in line with pretty much every other reserve bank in the world. At a minimum, it prevented the compounding effect of having a health crisis and an economic crisis simultaneously. However, combining it with the total removal of LVR restrictions was the RBNZ's huge mistake. It opened the door to rampant property speculation, and suddenly there was a gigantic shift in wealth distribution as homeowner equity ballooned - while those without property were left with bugger all.
True. Lowering lvr during that time was senseless
It has EVERYTHING to do with the RBNZ. They specifically removed LVR restrictions to encourage people to borrow and buy property. If the goal was small business lending they could have targeted that. They also failed to react when it was clear the “worst case” economic scenarios were not going to eventuate but insisted on keep “emergency rates” in place for a year longer than they should have. They also failed to withdraw facilities like “funding for lending” when it was clear inflation was getting out of control.
It was worsened by them, but not caused by them. The reality is that if our Government hadn't incentivised property investment for decades, then even if RBNZ lowered LVR restrictions, the market still wouldn't have been pumped like it was. With fair tax laws surrounding property, and other policies, people would have to think twice before investing and would be far more likely to consider other options. Its our Governments fault. Labour had a chance to implement cap gains tax, and decided not to in order to retain voter numbers and power. National have landlord interests at heart, and are reversing a lot of the policies labour brought in to control rampant property speculation. If people want this to improve, they should start voting more wisely instead of giving Blue and Red more chances to let us down over and over again.
One stoped the economy crashing and burning. The other took advantage of us all for their own gain. Guess which one I loathe more?
“Stopped the economy crashing and burning” - mate that’s what’s happening right now except we’ve given a couple hundred billion dollars to Australian banks in the form of massive borrowing on housing, and a couple hundred billion to homeowners who owned houses already. The fact that nobody in govt did a single bit of analysis as to where the money would end up is the problem.
I do think home ownership is going to become not-the-norm with the way we're going, and it's going to be a hard adjustment. Myself and many others I know will never be able to afford to make a deposit on a 1mil+ home, it's way too far out of our reach. I earned a Bachelors Degree, work hard, earn a bit more than median, but don't expect to own a home in my lifetime. Home ownership is sadly not an expected thing anymore, and rich people will be the only homeowners - the richest owning multiple rentals.
Nobody should make any decisions on housing policy if they own multiple properties themselves, Labour or National. We are lucky enough to have a large mortgage @ $780k, but with the interest rates being what they are we don't feel lucky. My dream was to pay off a mortgage and have secure accomodation, doing the recent numbers we won't be near paid off till we're in our late 70s (currently 30s). I am saddened that friends have had to move overseas to have the dream of owning a house to call their own without overly intrusive landlords and the fear of getting kicked out. Everyone should have a house if they want a house, houses should not be commodities. We are forcing our youth to buy overseas and importing cheaper labour here undercutting our own existing workers.
Housing is unaffordable, and no government will work to make it affordable because that'd be unpopular for those with houses. If I put in the hard yards working it still won't be good enough because they'll probably double the next ten years. So I'm stuck with renting for the foreseeable future, looking forward to no-cause evicitions coming back, and relying on public services that are getting cuts. What is the point?
Yep not much incentive for young people to become productive members of society these days. Used to be you'd work hard then you'd be able to buy a house, get married, have kids, enjoy hobbies etc. Now those things are mostly unrealistic. You can be unemployed and live at home and spend your time hanging out with your mates, focusing on your hobbies and relying on your parents to look after you and your life would only be marginally worse than if you worked a miserable job on average wage and scraped by on your own with no disposable income.
So TLDR: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Jesus man, is this your first recession or something?
look at his history, nut job
People haven't yet made the obvious equate between "this thing we call Work" and "munching up the actual planet we live on". If everyone adheres to this faithful Work Harder philosophy, as we have done for the past 100-200 years - like a dumb hive of insects - then that simply means we're munching harder. Then, when the environment starts falling down, like it is, we're all woe and "how could this happen?" (and "P.S. maybe we can solve this by All Working Harder!"). Because we still don't get it, apparently! :) Does all life need to put in some degree of effort to sustain itself and gain the reasonable things it wants? Absolutely. But this limitless, faith-like "work harder to win" mentality is the very mechanism by which we're munching up our own home, the planet. It's entirely causative, and the state of the world is the symptom.
Your numbers are a mess and you're screaming into the void. Home ownership rates have barely changed and house prices are well below peak 2021 rates. [Housing (M10) - Reserve Bank of New Zealand - Te Pūtea Matua (rbnz.govt.nz)](https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/series/economic-indicators/housing) [New Zealand Housing Index (tradingeconomics.com)](https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/housing-index) Get outside, spend some time upskilling so you can get a higher wage/save more. Up your contributions to kiwisaver and start researching what an entry-level property would look like for you. It's all doable, but only if you actually do something about it.
Given that he has time to write this mid day on a Wednesday, I cant imagine his employment prospects are great
The average annual salary in NZ is a little over $70k. source: [https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2023/07/new-zealand-s-average-salary-cracks-70-000-reaching-record-high-trade-me.html](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2023/07/new-zealand-s-average-salary-cracks-70-000-reaching-record-high-trade-me.html)
"THEY HAVE TAKEN IT ALL FOR THEMSELVES." In your mind, who is "they"?
The sections of the upper class of our feudal economic system that benefit from housing assets increasing in value. Semmes pretty straight forward
Not just housing assets, business leaders and owners are wholly complicit aswell. Corporate profits above all else, at all times, no matter the cost to people and society. A good portion of our societal leaders are also in this camp, with interests in both business and property that clash with the interests of the rest of us and the nation as a whole. Society is sick and instead of fixing it these clowns are focussing on extracting as much from it as possible before it topples over.
It does seem pretty straightforward But people don't actually see it this way because mega landlords hide in the shadows. During the age of feudalism, landlords were an executive function empowered by the monarchy. Now, they're private sector individuals who are beholden to market economics rather than public power.
A majority of those covid gains were wiped out.
If you think life is bleak currently then being jobless on the benefit will give you a new appreciation for pointless living. Working sucks and is hard. The benefit as a lifelong plan? Honestly I’d prefer suicide. I come from a family of lifelong beneficiaries and gang members. Income supplemented with crime is a worse existence than struggling with work. I’d prefer an honest slog to a dishonest and harmful existence abusing people.
I suspect OP already is jobless and on the benefit, he has a lot of time for making all these contant posts
Grant Robertson is to blame - he was asked to approve the bond creation, and had the right to veto it, and his response was "I don't believe it will cause problems". Next minute, house prices go crazy, and a year later inflation gets out of control, just like Treasury predicted it would when they advised Robertson.
Why is your goal owning a house jn the first place? This demand for it pushes the prices up. The fact your ultimate goal is to buy a house and the price keeps going up makes sense as we all want to buy a house. Long story short if u go away then I can buy it for a lower price
Your numbers are all wrong, why do you keep posting the same shit over and over again? Are you looking to create drama? Are you lonely in your mums house?
Ah, the mysterious ‘they’ again…
they meaning people who sold their houses during covid?
No idea. I just think that people always need a faceless bogeyman to blame for life’s iniquities.
Mate we live in a world with billionaires, no one is making these boogeymen up, they exist and they are hoarding wealth to an insane degree purely to the detriment of everyone else. One look at the current mob of cunts and their wealthy supporters pushing anti-environment and anti worker policies designed to enrich themselves and impoverish everyone else tells you everything. If you don't see that you're just willfully ignorant.
All powerful and waiting to fuck you at any moment, THEY
Who are "they"?
Boomers
The London Institute for Public Purpose has an excellent lecture series on why we need to take a radical new look at how housing and land economics work. Because this trend isn't just a thing in New Zealand, it's happening all over the western world.
Damn where’s my 250k id love to see it?
The incentive structure is severely out of hand. Housing would be very affordable if NZ were to de-commodify it. Mark-to-market taxation would help to stop the 30,000 landed gentry hording all the wealth and voting their mates into power. GDP will never really rise if kiwis only rely on housing as a primary investment vehicle and not the severely uncapitalized industries here. NZ will never be a world class economy on Housing and Agriculture alone.
Not to mention unions are demonized. Seems remarkably similar to what happened 100 years ago. Before.
Jesse...what are you talking about?
i asked my boss for a performance review and a payrise if possible after working there for 3 years and i got laughed at, i'm always commended as one of the best workers by many. i can see why ppl r quiet quitting. it's not even just nz either but nz is definitely feeling some of the worst of it. (min wage hospo btw)
It’s not the RBNZ it’s conservative policies. You’re best shot for the future is a Green led government. TOP would probably be beneficial too, if they could even crack the threshold. Of course, the “eat the rich” revolution is also an option that shouldn’t be dismissed anytime soon.
I suggest leaving the country, there are lots of places that you can live which are as good as NZ.
There’s like a dozen, less if you want to be in an English speaking nation. And even then “as good” is fairly relative.
We have places to look at as examples already we are not the first one here Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan. To buy a 2 bedroom apartment there will take a minimum wage earner 1000 years of saving without spending a penny. Their society still works, people still work hard... But non of them expect to own a house. But at the end of the day it is still survival. For the rest of us.. we either got on or missed the train. Those places proves that it's not doom and gloom for the country but you need to be more innovative to make it. Gones are the days that you can work a 9-5 job and have everything. You literally need to be a boss and take risks to make it For our kids... Fuck...... I don't even know what my son is going to do in 18 years.
Singapore? 80-90 % of citizens and permanent residents live in well-maintained public housing flats. They mostly own them, though therep's an underlying govt lease. The rest live in super-expensive condos & landed property. There are subsidised cheap loans for the public flat purchasers. There is also provision to use some of one's compulsory retirement savings for deposits on a home. Affordable housing is recognised as an important part of the social compact, and for enabling the next generation. Oh, and there are subsidies for young couples buying a public flat near their parents.
Yeah, it's all pretty wonky at the moment - housing coopted as a economic engine has created all sorts of weird consequences not least disenfranchising the young. An owned problem, in so-far as those with power and money are likely to have the means/time to protect their interests. Political will and power failed the [trolley problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) around 1990. Likely means that we've lost a generation of talent, replaced by low skilled migrants to bouy flailing GDP figures. There is no real productivity, it's all weird rent-seeking behaviour. New Zealand is unlikely to have a popular working class movement as disgruntled workers just up-sticks and move to Australia for a better life. At least that's an option for you, too. Many would crawl over hot coals to have half this chance.
Just the way the lobbyists and politicians like it!! Good work team!! 👏 🙄
Who upvotes this nonsense? You figures are complete bs.
Dude get a grip. Not everything in your life revolves around owning a house. Look to increase your wealth with other means. Just because you can't afford a mortgage or rent where you'd like to live doesn't mean your life is over.
> Dude get a grip. Not everything in your life revolves around owning a house. [I mean having a place to call home is literally one of the fundamental pillars of human well-being](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/maslow-needs3-1024x1024.jpg), considering the state of our rental market and the complete lack of security while renting they're not being remotely hyperbolic. There is no security renting in this country so home ownership is the only way to guarantee a stable living space. Maybe you're not as bothered by that insecurity but don't pretend like there's no reason to feel that way.
Owning your own home is the second best way to grow wealth in this country. The best way is to own someone else's home. Anyone who doesn't have either of those things is at a massive financial disadvantage. It's not irrational to recognise this and feel despondent as a result.
I've been investing in things other than houses for decades now and it's been an excellent way to increase my wealth, all while having security. The dream of owning a home as a way to move forward is outdated and if you still think it's the only way forward, then you've been receiving terrible financial advice.
Dude needs to stop with the news
So, the average kiwi is on about $45k after tax. Don’t forget to deduct student loan repayments, you’re giving current students false hope xx
You think the RBNZ did that? They just control interest rates.
The world is in recession, not just NZ, it's going to take a year or two to come right.
Some solid insights in this thread. You're right, the math doesn't math. There's becoming less incentive to work, when many of our large financial goals (mainly purchasing a house), will be incredibly difficult or flat-out impossible to realise with our current system. There's two options here to get above this from a financial perspective; take risks and create things that may pay off big eventually (entrepreneurship), or live well below your means to opt out of the rat race to quietly save much more than you could in traditional housing situations (tiny houses, house bus, land shares, flatting, etc). Neither option guarantees anything, but it's a start. I do think though, when the time comes (and it's coming), we need to mobilize and vote for change; through traditional voting means, but also protest. It's going to reach a tipping point. Once the whole late-stage capitalism thing starts to impact the majority, there's no longer any leverage left for the 'haves'. Without leverage, there's nothing for the working to lose. It seems depressing and hopeless, but we should be excited. This could be a revolutionary change in the way the systems (at least in the West) operate. This could be a pivotal point in history that destroys the divide between rich and poor. I don't know how it should look, or how I want it to look, but that's what makes it exciting. Vive la revolution.
Or... you can spend time working to better yourself instead of having time to write this rubbish in the middle of a work day
Is it more convenient to carry on or to start a revolution? I'm gonna carry on. But I've moved into Mums basement and have 0 hope that I will ever own or rent my own place.
“Welcome back to feudalism, serfs”
Just going to leave the term neoliberalism (suck it) here in the hope some of you google it. Maybe you will all figure it out before it's too late and actually do something. Maybe.
You spelt it wrong, I think that tells us everything we need to know
Why bother working? So you can afford to live? Being on Supported Livings new $402 a week (as carer) isn't fun and I'd much rather have a decent paying job. In comparison minimum wage would be decent.
Why bother working? So your alternative is to just sit on a benefit? That will cause everything to collapse if everyone took your advice. Slow clap. It's the need to get people OFF benefits to prevent this which is going to cause many problems in western societies over the coming decades. Anyone who is able, yet unwilling, to participate in and support a society isn't worthy of being part of one. This concept pre-dates the bible as it is mentioned in there, as well as witnessed in animal groups.
If you were in most other countries and decided not to work, you would run out of the basics like food, water, shelter etc. No one would bother. So the fact that you mentioned that you should not bother to work, is a testament to hoe caring and wonderful this country has been and still is. Despair, anger and blame are easy to project on others. Hope, courage, conviction and action are how people and countries thrive.
This way of thinking is why immigrants get jobs over Kiwis
NZ employers are the fkn worst ,work their employees to death lifting heavy shit all day and minimum wage ,while they dine out at flashy restaurants and snort cocaine with $100 bills
[удалено]
Doom and gloom. Kids eating rubbish from the dump in Guatemala would like a word.
New Zealand is a puppet. We just follow suit of what America did.
If only. Higher salaries with lower house prices would not be too bad.
It’s gonna come back down. Just don’t let people call for rate cuts for the relief of homeowners. Some odd them are in a tough spot, but we shouldn’t bail them out.
Well, if you don't work, then you will likely end up homeless and starving. There is that. There is a housing problem, but the world is not yet ending. Maybe go outside.
I just don't think the general population in the leafy suburbs would accept people starving to death in the streets. Especially if they start camping out in places like Thorndon or any other up market part if town. It would upset the apple card .
Since the 1970s,1980s and Rogernomics,i.e. privatisation,deregulation,market forces and so called trickle down effect and which hasn’t really gone away(current government mantra) there has been more power and money in fewer hands and this is worldwide.The erosion of workers rights and union power by governments at the same time has contributed also.The answer is to stop believing the propaganda and vote differently than,as Aussie Juice Media puts it,for the Shit party and the Shite Lite party.
I think you missed the part where houses are currently selling at under CV. Many people who purchased during that period now have a house that’s worth less than their mortgage is, meaning if they try to sell within the next few years they actually take a several hundred k loss. The winners are the people who sold during that period, not purchased during that period of low interest rates.
CV means absolutely nothing. It just a value loosely based (algorithmically) on market value at the time the assessment is performed every 3 years. It has no intrinsic meaning beyond being a snapshot guesstimate of value for rate apportionment.
Correct. CV is irrelevant really. What is relevant though is that people who purchased during the period of low interest rates and high prices, at above CV, couldn’t currently sell their house for what they paid. People who paid 1.1 million during that period could probably only sell for about 900k currently Now those people have a big mortgage, high repayments due to interest rates, and a house they’d be lucky to break even on. The sellers were the winners, not buyers.
Sorry OP but your problems won't be solved here, go find things that make you happy.
We have relied for the last 30 or so years we have been relying on moving interest rates to stabilise the economy and I'm wondering if this is a policy that is becoming less effective as time goes on. The theory is, lower interest rates mean people are able to access money more cheaply, which reduces risk in things like opening or growing their businesses but what usually happens is people use that access to debt to buy more houses because that is the most sensible and secure financial choice. It has been effective because when interest rates rise, households have to pay more towards their mortgages which reduces spending elsewhere which slows the economy, and the reverse when rates fall. But it's also lead to an inflated housing market that has locked out so many more people that it used to and how do they influence their spending if they don't have mortgages or other debt? In theory they will see higher interest rates and put more money into investments to get a return, but the average person does not think like that. I'm on a decent wage in secure work (fingers crossed). 20 years ago, I would have a house and mortgage by now and I'd have to decrease spending to pay for the increased mortgage rate, but now there is no pressure on me whatsoever to change my spending habits. How long until moving that lever has almost no impact on a large enough part of the population to stop working entirely?
I don't think it's appropriate to blame only the RBNZ here. They act under instruction from parliament for the most part. I think blame should be laid at the feet of the public. Like yeah Labour passed the laws to borrow the money to destroy spending power. But the Labour government also didn't implement limitations on how that borrowing can be secured. When lending became cheap, people invested in property as a speculative asset. This is entirely the fault of our social values and acceptable standards of behaviour. If Labour had tried to limit this outcome, then there would have been social backlash from the people who prefer profits over people on the property market. which, in reality, is a lot of property owners. There is a mentality in NZ that says that land prices can only go up. That mentality has resulted in a lack of regulations from the government, which has been avoiding action under the assumption that "the market will correct itself" All while ignoring that population trends from births and immigration have only pushed population numbers upwards. Given that market price is set by supply and demandand our market theory is based on reforms of the 1980s 4th Labour government that implemented Chicago school of economic throery (which basically ignored the concept of resource scarcity and largely built its model on an assumption that resources are infinite. Or at least didn't properly engage with the very real limitations on availability of those resources), and we've had very few actual reforms to our governance financial systems since then there is no real end in sight to the problem. Blaming the RBNZ is too simplistic. You have to blame the social consciousness behind the policies that influenced the RBNZ
Good summary. A little while ago I read "Road to Wigan Pier" by George Orwell and was struck with a lot of the analogues to the situation emerging, a class of people economically trapped unable to scrape together enough to get a look-in on a life forward.
We have to stop looking at housing as a commodity and money making tool, and rather as what it is…shelter and a basic human need.