Well done Andrew King

[Edinburgh]

Congrat's to Andrew King for getting the media to accept that many people who say they can't afford a house could if they made some sacrifices and bought outside their preferred central Auckland locations.

This is the kind of story the media loves to sensationalise and to beat investors over the head with. He has pulled them up sharp. Quite an achievement.

Well done Andrew!

[spaceman]

My 2 cents

When I bought my first house in wellington, in 1997. I was looking in Wainuiomata and Stokes Valley, not the best two suburbs in Wellington but it was affordable for me at the time.

It seems to me from reading some of the stories related to this topic, that a lot of people want to start their trip up the property ladder from halfway rather than at the bottom.
Obviously their nana's never told them "that the only job where you start at the top is digging a hole"

Cheers
Spaceman

[freezinhot]

It seems to me from reading some of the stories related to this topic, that a lot of people want to start their trip up the property ladder from halfway rather than at the bottom.
Obviously their nana's never told them "that the only job where you start at the top is digging a hole"

Indeed, 2 of my colleague's at work started with their first homes at an entry level price of 400k. I cannot imagine paying that type of mortgage today with current interest rates. I freaked at the prospect of our first mortgage 7 years ago which was nowhere near todays prices.

Pretty scary really.

FH

[xris]

Congrat's to Andrew King for getting the media to accept that many people who say they can't afford a house could if they made some sacrifices and bought outside their preferred central Auckland locations.

This is the kind of story the media loves to sensationalise and to beat investors over the head with. He has pulled them up sharp. Quite an achievement.

Well done Andrew!

Not wishing to deflate you, Edinborough and certainly not Andrew, but does he really deserve to be congratulated for putting the media in its place?

After all he is saying nothing that a thousand other people have said in the past. And the only reason the media chose to report his story was because...er...the media chose to report his story. Hardly an achievement. If the media saw not benefit to itself in reporting the story it would not have been reported.

xris

[Edinburgh]

Not wishing to beflate you, Edinborough and certainly not Andrew, but does he really deserve to be congratulated for putting the media in its place?

After all he is saying nothing that a thousand other people have said in the past. And the only reason the media chose to report his story was because...er...the media chose to report his story. Hardly an achievement. If the media saw not benefit to itself in reporting the story it would not have been reported.

xris

Setting aside the rather confused argument (what does that last sentence actually mean?), I get your point and you are wrong.

This was a beat up story, like so many, and the victims were property investors and developers. The way it was originally presented gave credibility to Labour attempts to attack this group.

What Andrew did was convincingly point out some home truths and I didn't see anyone else doing it. The media could not ignore this and have now highlighted that many people 'can't' afford a house because they refuse to buy in cheap areas and because they refuse to make sacrifices.

Media relations is a game (I know, I am an ex journo and PR consultant) and Andrew played a winning hand. You might not want to congratulate him but I still say, well done!

[poormastery]

Conspiracy

I haven’t read Andrew, but I disagree with him.

Poormastery used to live in London. I was on the property market early – all well and good for me. Property prices trebled in a decade. The baby boomers also cleaned up. The young got completely and utterly shafted.

This can all have interesting social consequences. The crime on the mean streets of London can be disturbing. Poormastery would blame in part a society where wealth is increasingly split down age lines.

The politicians are all the same age (baby boomers). Hacks are all the same age (baby boomers). The voters are largely the same age (baby boomers).

Policy making reflects the demographics. Baby boomers are the main advocates of blocking development (they are more often than not nimby’s). Baby boomers have ensured that the tax on their preferred form of investment (property) is more favoured by the politicians.

There is an insidious (and I suspect unconscious) conspiracy to transfer intergenerational wealth to the self absorbed baby boomer. Of course, poormastery was lucky enough to pick the plot early. So be it...

Regards,
*poormastery*

[krispedersen]

You should probably read Andrew then Poormastery before you disagree with him.

It's not a government resonsibility locally or centrally to make house prices more affordable if the majority of people keep making foolish decisions to purchase depreciating consumer goods.

More and more people take the opportunity cost of instant gratification rather than investing in their future and by changing policy to 'assist' these people into housing all you do is increase their victim mentality

[muppet]

Ah ha Poormastery

You said:

I haven’t read Andrew, but I disagree with him.

That is a very interesting comment

Perhaps it should be posted in Forum Funnies.

Regards

[poormastery]

Hi muppet,

Perhaps. Of course, I got the gist of Andrew’s comments from the posts on this forum.

Poormastery has been a beneficiary of the legendary property price booms. Nonetheless, it is my view ithat the lack of affordability for housing in New Zealand is predominantly related to insufficient new development. This in turn is a consequence of vested interest group opposition to building more. Note that this is also the case in Britain, Australia et al, where the demographics are similar.

It is a different perspective. As usual, I am happy to stand alone on this point. I don’t like crowds, in any case.

Regrads,
*poormastery*

[The_Dog]

Poormastery,

What has your personal view of political forces in London decades ago got to do with Andrew's commentary on current lifestyle choices of New Zealanders?

Anyway, I'm about to head out on the mean crime ridden streets of London for lunch, so wish me luck. I take comfort in the thought there are plenty of wealthy self absorbed baby boomers out there that will, statically, get attacked before me.

The Dog

[poormastery]

Hi The Dog, you ask:

What has your personal view of political forces in London decades ago got to do with Andrew's commentary on current lifestyle choices of New Zealanders?

My view was that the issue of unaffordability of property is not predominantly one of lifestyle choices, either on the mean streets of London, or in New Zealand.

I am discussing the situation now - not decades ago.

Regards,
*poormastery*

[Marcus]

Mr Dog,
I think (correct me if I am wrong pm) that pm believes the un-affordability of housing is due to the lack of development which has been masterminded by those who stand to benefit the most (those in power, that already own property). Effectively 'the rich' helping the ‘rich become richer’.

Ironically over the ages, people in power (the 'haves') have at times relied on the votes of the 'have nots' to get or keep them in power by making rules that appear to take money away from the 'haves'. Unfortunately, the 'haves' have more resolve and means to overcome, weather or avoid altogether these changes.

Andrew however, is not addressing the reason for un-affordability on the whole in this article at least. He is merely addressing how some people (that could otherwise) are not prepared to make sacrifices to achieve home ownership.
I agree with this point and have witnessed it in many of my friends. So many people these days are consciously choosing lifestyle over home ownership. Their call.

Cheers,
Marcus.

[poormastery]

Lifestyle?

Hi Marcus,

Like any good rhetoric, Andrew has a point. I do not dismiss the lifestyle considerations he raises entirely in terms of the unaffordability of housing debate. I simply do not agree that it is the main cause of the problem.

Nonetheless, in my view, a dispassionate analysis of the figures results in the unequivocal, categorical conclusion that the predominant reason for the deterioration in the affordability of housing in New Zealand is a demand and supply imbalance. Quite simply, not enough new housing is being built.

There is plenty of room to build new housing. New Zealand is slightly bigger than Britain, but only has 4 million people (as opposed to Britain’s figure of approximately 60 million). Yet land costs are extremely high in New Zealand. Part of this high cost is a consequence of regulation, set up by insiders, perhaps unconsciously.

In terms of insiders and outsiders in the system, I have seen evidence of this everywhere. For example, in France and Germany, employees have a job for life, and great pension benefits (again the beneficiaries are generally baby boomers). Alas, as a result of the economy, most firms have hiring freezes. Young people can't get into the system - they are the unlucky outsiders.

In order to reach the correct solutions, I believe that it is important to first establish what the problems are. Let us do so today...

Regards,
*poormastery*

[muppet]

Hi Poorm

If you haven't read what Andrew has had to say then how can you do a dispassionate analysis of the figures.

Regards

[poormastery]

Reply

Hi muppet,

I have read Andrew.

He suggests leveraging up to five times what is apparently a high income in New Zealand to enter the property market. Frankly, I do not believe that it is credible to deny the housing affordability problem in New Zealand, however clever the rhetoric is.

Regards,
*poormastery*