Auckland houses less affordable than New York

[Jumpin]

And I just saw this:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4576706/NZ-high-on-global-prosperity-list

Brings the relative house affordabilities into perspective does it not?

So if self-confessed losers who think NZ incomes are a joke, all I can say is If you can't make it in NZ where the hell will you be able to make it?

[spaceman]

That's why it pays to read the study and not just look at the pretty pictures. ES-2 is MAJOR MARKETS, of which there is only one in NZ (Auckland). So ES-2 is Auckland. There is no error in proof reading, and unfortunately there's no good way to write around laziness. Someone who is looking for the one sentence bite to prove their point will always find it, it seems

Table 2 says that NZ has one major market (> 1,000,000) that is severely unaffordable 5.1 & over and the national median is 6.4 ........ So it would appear that ChrisD can't even look at the pretty pictures properly

If ChrisD was correct and there are no mistakes .... Natl Median = 6.4 (table 2)..... main center median = 5.3 (pg 33) ......... this would mean that the ratio outside the main centers listed on pg 33 would have to be higher that the main centers to bring that Natl median up to 6.4.

So ChrisD is saying that prices outside the main centers are way way higher than inside them (and the list on page 33 covers a huge chunk of NZ) ..... or of course the wages are much much much lower. There would be a 20% (roughly) difference in wages to produce the gap between a ratio of 6.4 & 5.3 but as most of the population (I'm guessing 90%) is covered on page 33 then the actual difference in wages would have to be much much greater.

The upshot being ChrisD reckons the prices outside the main centers are much much higher or the people are only earning about 2% of what them there city slickers earn.

Want to admit you're wrong now ChrisD and at least show you're man enough to admit you're wrong and you shouldn't really run your mouth off just because your all bitter and twisted about me making you look like a fool in the past....... or do you want to keep running off at the mouth and providing further proof as to why your clients would be better off looking elsewhere?


Cheers
Spaceman

[ChrisD]

Table 2 says that NZ has one major market (> 1,000,000) that is severely unaffordable 5.1 & over and the national median is 6.4 ........ So it would appear that ChrisD can't even look at the pretty pictures properly

The table is looking at the national median for major markets. Jesus it's not rocket science. READ THE STUDY.

edit: To clarify (and I'll try to use small words for you), table 2 shows the median for major markets (> 1,000,000) of which NZ only has one (Auckland). This is reflected on table 33, which again shows Auckland with median 6.4 (exactly the same as shown on table 2). Page 33 also shows how other centres (non-major) in NZ stack up, and the national median for all centres if 5.3. Understand? Ready to calm down and read the study yet?

[spaceman]

Lolz

The table is looking at the national median for major markets. Jesus it's not rocket science. READ THE STUDY.

edit: To clarify (and I'll try to use small words for you), table 2 shows the median for major markets (> 1,000,000) of which NZ only has one (Auckland). This is reflected on table 33, which again shows Auckland with median 6.4 (exactly the same as shown on table 2). Page 33 also shows how other centres (non-major) in NZ stack up, and the national median for all centres if 5.3. Understand? Ready to calm down and read the study yet?

Quite calm thanks..... and in table 2 what does is say is the national median???

Oh wait that'd be 6.4 .....wouldn't it?????..... or you still having problems reading the pretty pictures.

	         National Median
	                 
	
Australia   	            7.1
Canada  	            4.6
China  	                    11.4
Ireland  	            4.8
New Zealand  	           6.4
United Kingdom  	    5.1
United States 	           3.3

....or am I just making those numbers up and they don't really appear in table ES-2 on page 2????????

pretty funny you telling me to read the study when you can't read well enough to pick up on the error.

Looks like you chose option 2.........(or do you want to keep running off at the mouth and providing further proof as to why your clients would be better off looking elsewhere?)............. keep digging that hole ChrisD, you can bet that it's helping your existing clients and anybody who was foolish enough to consider becoming one

cheers
spaceman

[cube]

spaceman - I have to agree with ChrisD. Table 2 is the National Median in the Major Markets - because NZ only has 1 (Auckland) that is the Auckland median. The column title "National Median", taken out of context, is confusing.

Australia, for example, has 5 major markets, and the National Median for its Major markets is 7.1, although the overall median for Australia is 6.1

[spaceman]

Hey cube .... so my point about bad proof-reading right or wrong.???

If you look at the table it clearly has a column titled national median there is no context to take...... I only pasted that bit in as I couldn't arsed copying and formatting the lot.

Your take that it is the Auckland median doesn't make sense as it is impossible to have a median (by definition) if you only have one value.

If they wanted to note the major market median why did they head the column with NATIONAL MEDIAN????

Cheers
Spaceman

[cube]

Hey cube .... so my point about bad proof-reading right or wrong.???

If you look at the table it clearly has a column titled national median there is no context to take...... I only pasted that bit in as I couldn't arsed copying and formatting the lot.

Your take that it is the Auckland median doesn't make sense as it is impossible to have a median (by definition) if you only have one value.

If they wanted to note the major market median why did they head the column with NATIONAL MEDIAN????

Cheers
Spaceman

Because if they titled it "Median for Major Markets", life would be too simple.

Can you have a median when n=1? Don't see why not, but there may be a technical argument as to why you can't!

[asdr]

Your take that it is the Auckland median doesn't make sense as it is impossible to have a median (by definition) if you only have one value.

This is depressingly innumerate. Of course you can have a median when you only have one value in the set.

If they wanted to note the major market median why did they head the column with NATIONAL MEDIAN????

The context is in the title of the table: "Major Markets (Over 1,000,000 Population)" and in the preceding paragraph of text.

[One]

And I just saw this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...rosperity-list
Brings the relative house affordabilities into perspective does it not?

So if self-confessed losers who think NZ incomes are a joke, all I can say is If you can't make it in NZ where the hell will you be able to make it?

The article:

Norway headed the index, followed by Denmark, Finland, Australia and New Zealand.
The indices said New Zealand rated only 19th in the health rankings and 17th in economic.
It was first in education and third in ranks of personal freedom and social capital. It was fourth in governance and seventh in safety and security. It was 14th in entrepreneurship and opportunity.

more or less says our lifestyle makes up for our poverty.

[toby]

I think the article was a joke. For one thing the couple said they wouldn't pay off their home till they were 55 as they'd have a 30 year loan - HELLO, get in line with the rest of us. Of course though they failed to think that in 10 years their payments will be the same yet their income should of increased.

Secondly as another person said, NY is that city or state?

The main issue is what I call the HP mentality. Hire purchase get everything new today and pay tomorrow. Whatever happened to starting at the bottom and moving up.
Masses of people in the past bought lived in it, fixed it up, sold and moved up the ladder. Oh no, not this couple they wanted it all now.

Also many people won't have flatmates, won't work weekends or take second jobs.
The issue is not house prices, the issue is Kiwi's are getting idle and not making enough money.

[Perry]

Of course though they failed to think that in 10 years their pay-
ments will be the same yet their income should've increased.

What about the possibility of increased interest
rates increasing their repayments, rather than
them remaining unchanged?

[speights boy]

The issue is not house prices, the issue is Kiwi's are getting idle and not making enough money.

Not sure that the article you refer to Toby has been posted. So here it is.

I agree with you in some cases, but there are other couples who work 60-70 hour weeks earning reasonable money.

For these types, their limited time off is more valuable than the do up brigade; and so they go for the so called 'perfect house'

But otherwise you are right, 'I want it now' generation is heading for a pile of trouble.

Like all cycles though, high debt and spending will be slowly be replaced by save and wait attitude; until we start all over again.

First-time buyers find they have to pay more

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=10701624

[spaceman]

This is depressingly stupid

This is depressingly innumerate. Of course you can have a median when you only have one value in the set.

You can't have a median as there are no higher or lower values .... the median is the middle value of an ordered set of values ....or another way......In probability theory and statistics, a median is described as the numeric value separating the higher half of a sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half......... it's like having a race with one person in it, it simply isn't a race....* waits for somebody to say but you can race yourself *

The context is in the title of the table: "Major Markets (Over 1,000,000 Population)" and in the preceding paragraph of text.

This is also stupid..... if the column was headed Median it would make sense (for the countries with more than 1 value)...however it is headed National Median.

Another example of bad proof-reading/sloppy writing is the "China" entry ... does anybody really think Hong Kong is China???.... why not just say Hong Kong..... How can a city have a national median???

I could go on and point out further errors in the report, but I'm bored.

Cheers
Spaceman

[LKSteve]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4576706/NZ-high-on-global-prosperity-list
Brings the relative house affordabilities into perspective does it not?

So if self-confessed losers who think NZ incomes are a joke, all I can say is If you can't make it in NZ where the hell will you be able to make it?

The article you link to measures prosperity in terms of 'health', 'education', 'personal freedom and social capital', 'governance', 'safety', 'security', 'entrepreneurship and opportunity' - You will get no argument from me that New Zealand rates highly when measured against most of these metrics. However, the article states very clearly at the beginning that Britain's Legatum Institute, which produced the study, is attempting to produce 'different kinds of indices to mainstream economic scales'. There is no mention of indebtedness. I would argue that with borrowings by New Zealand running at $300 million per week we would find it very difficult not to appear prosperous. Imagine for a moment how prosperous we would look if our weekly surplus was $300 million. Well, that's exactly the illusion being created by these borrowings!
Jumpin. Just imagine how prosperous you would look if you were borrowing let’s say, $300K per week. You'd no doubt be sending your kids to a nice school, driving a nice car & living in a nice house. Bloody hell mate, $10K per week would rent you a nice pad on Takapuna beach, you'd look really prosperous.
The prosperity that New Zealand currently enjoys is an absolute illusion created by borrowed money. Someone sometime will need to pay for all this fine education, governance & social capital (whatever that is). I think New Zealand is a wonderful place & I've lived & worked in quite a few countries in both the Northern & Southern Hemisphere’s so I feel I am well informed. The problem that New Zealand has is that the country is living way beyond its means. Incomes are a joke mate & why wouldn't they be? In a country where businesses can't even pay their bills, how can internationally competitive wages be offered?
The bottom line is that New Zealand's economy does not generate an income to justify the lifestyle enjoyed by its citizens. New Zealanders are happily bingeing on debt while living in denial that every party must end. To see how these types of parties end look no further than Iceland, Greece, Ireland, the U.S. and soon Portugal, France & Italy. The day of reckoning will come.

[Jumpin]

Look I'm sure you're right we do have too much debt, but the Legatum Institute puts NZ in the list at 17 in the economy section, (which takes debt, income etc into account) . Even if you ignore the other measures, (Health education etc) 17 is way higher up the list than the 30 something unaffordability of Tauranga houses. So sure we could be doing better, but we're still doing better than most. And yes while monetary wealth is important, it is not the only measure. I have great personal wealth in family, friends and lifestyle quite apart from dollars.

What you have done in your analysis above is to drill down beneath the figures and say "yes, but..." This is quite legitimate of course, but you have to do the same thing with other reports, even if they are agreeing with your own beliefs. The Pavletich report has some interesting data, but it reports it all out of context in order to push a particular point of view. Now of course all politicians and lobbyists do that of course, but you just need to be aware of it.