Most Active - Last 30 Days
I'm not convinced on immigration either way.
Originally Posted by elguapo
Immigration of suitable people (people who add value rather than drag on the economy) to keep the population stable seems like a fair idea.
Adding people to 'grow' the economy is dubious in my book.
Japan did neither - I'm not sure if they made a concious decision knowing the population would fall or if they really took their eye off the ball.
Institutionalised discrimination which is tolerated by the populace.
Deep down at a cultural difference level many people don't want to get mixed up with other nationalities, particularly the Chinese and Koreans, and are happier for the country to shrink, deal with a bankrupt government or whatever.
That combined with an ingrained reluctance to protest and question authority. Those who don't like the status quo and speak out are stigmitized and ignored.
There's a big furore (well one of many) about Trump selecting which media has access to him, which has been status quo in Tokyo for at least 30 years.
japan discusses raising the ago of "old" from 60 to 75
Japan, with its 1.43 TFR, (children per woman) was doing better than South Korea and Singapore (both 1.19), Hong Kong (1.12) and Germany (1.38 ).
So Singapore began looking to Japan and its re-employment age. “When you raise the retirement age, the expectation is ‘same job, same pay’ ... When Japan introduced the idea of re-employment age, the concept is ‘not necessarily the same job, not necessarily the same pay’,” he said, noting that Japan’s re-employment age is still 65.
SINGAPORE — From July, the re-employment age will go up from 65 to 67 and employers will no longer have the option to cut employees’ wages at the age of 60
Last edited by cube; 14-01-2017 at 11:31 PM.
have you defeated them?
That's the ticket. There's always some risk but look at your financial situation/job stability and how much equity (deposit) you will have in the place and assess the likelihood of you needing to sell in a down market. If you can ride out the bumps you'll be ahead for sure in a decade or so.
Originally Posted by SleepySlug
To me, rising/high house prices are a result not a direct benefit.
Originally Posted by Anthonyacat
Such prices show that there is demand.
Why is there demand?
Can be multiple factors - a nice place to live: stable government with no threats or wars: plenty of good, well-paying employment; easy access to recreational facilities; a good place to set up in business; pleasant weather; in-demand educational facilities - the list could go on and on.
Conversely, places that have negative factors (wars, isolation, droughts, crime, high unemployment) have little demand and low property prices.
So the rise in property prices in NZ in general and Auckland in particular can be seen as a complement to us and the way we run our country.
High prices and quick price growth show there is demand in excess of supply, quite a distinction from just demand itself.
It can (and arguably is, in Auckland) be due to a poor way of running an area, as much as due to a good way.
high property prices are not the best
but better than low property prices
have you defeated them?
Just like shares, depends when you bought in.
Originally Posted by eri
Probably lots of folks around who use their house to live in and the price either way won't improve their quality of life.
Demand and really low interest rates...
Some of it's artificially inflated demand. So many houses being bought up and left empty.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)