|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
I was about to dip my toes into the million+ debt pool the other day but we decided "probably not a good idea". I mean, I might have to work more than three days a week if that ever happens. That would be suck of the highest degree
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
How is life as a cabinet minister?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:In Christchurch rent is atrocious (getting better) because there was limited supply. I hear in AK that rent is reasonable, it's house prices that are insane. The issue isn't supply as such as it's just overvalued, and the rapid rising prices is appealing for short term gains, feeding the bubble. It is very definitely a supply problem. Rents are rising, albeit slowly, and there have been a series of stories about huge numbers of people viewing rental properties in Auckland. There aren't enough home for investors to rent out or people to buy and there hasn't been enough for some time. The increase in house prices is only going to put more pressure on the rental market as more people are ruled out of buying. The rapid price rises are mostly being financed by historically cheap interest rates and the increasing number of people from within NZ who want to move to Auckland, as well as people who are struggling to get into their own homes and who are basically stuck in a holding pattern. They still need somewhere to live too. You could magically build 5,000 new houses overnight and it might slightly slow house price growth inflation, but it won't stop it. Interest rates, resistance against densification, Government feet-dragging on infrastructure needed to advance SHAs and promote suburban and urban growth (CRL) and the foreign buying/migration rabbit-hole are all part of the problem, but there's no silver bullet. Other than National actually doing something about it, I guess!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Auckland has a finite supply of land and a practically infinite demand. I don't see why houses would magically stop getting more and more expensive every year because the number of available houses is essentially fixed by the amount of land available to build houses on. Yes, eventually everything from Whangaparoa through to pukekohe will look like botany downs, but the fact is that (putting aside some sort of massive ecological disaster or atlantis rising out of the sea in the waitemata or a communist overthrow of the beehive) there can only be x amount of houses in x amount of area and there is always going to be some rich oval office who can afford whatever exorbitant price is set. The logical outcome is Auckland becoming like monaco or w/e where only the supremely rich can afford to own land, the middle class all rent and the poors move to Hamilton. I don't see any way for prices to stop going up in this scenario or any way to avoid this. In a speculation bubble the price is being set not by the worth of the land, but by the expectation that the land's value will increase. Eventually though, the land's value won't increase - as speculation continues more and more speculators find themselves having a harder and harder time shifting land as the "middle class" is priced out of home ownership and speculators are left selling between themselves portfolios of land where the value is greater than its worth, that does nothing but generate a cost until it finds a buyer. They bought it not so they could use it, but solely in the expectation they could sell it later, so they aren't maintaining the homes on the land, and often don't even rent the home out because it's easier to sell land without ongoing concerns. When the market is in that position it's only a matter of time before it dives, because that land is no longer an asset - it's a short-term liability. The demand is driven not by use but by speculation, and when the speculators stop buying the price collapses because while they still have in their hands what is a finite supply asset, it's also one that has ongoing costs whose use-value cannot generate revenue to cover, and which nobody but another speculator stuck with their own portfolio of immobile unwanted land can afford to buy. The price returns to a 'natural' level as speculators subsequently scramble to cut their losses by selling to small section of the market left buying-for-use at the much-reduced price of what the land is 'actually' worth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Rachel Glucina's resigned She's going to Mediaworks. Yeeeeep.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Demand is not actually infinite, and the number of available homes (not houses) is not actually constrained by the finite quantity of land. Yeah, but in the meantime Auckland's population is constantly increasing and all those people need a place to live too so I don't understand what 'natural' values would be in this case. Lol @ rents in Auckland being reasonable though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Hey that's what I heard OK. I don't fact check or anything. You guys do that for me
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
There's really no shortage of places to live. There's a dozen or so apartment complexes being built right now around the central city alone, there's tonnes of low-cost shitbox apartments already sitting empty in my own complex, and there's the increasingly popular area around SkyCity and Queen Street doorways. The only demographic really seeing an actual shortage is the Quarter Acre Block dwellers. 'Natural' values would be the normal market rate a person would buy the home at to live in, or a developer would buy the land at to develop. It's hard to precisely say what that would be because of course someone will say that the normal market rate is whatever someone will buy it for, but I don't think it would be a 1950s two-bedroom villa in Te Atatu for a million plus. The normal thing is that as land gets more expensive it's developed more - like you mentioned Monaco as an example of the logical end of Auckland, where only the super-rich own land, but Monaco is also one of the densest cities in the world as a result: the land is expensive because it's scarce, but because it's expensive the market has forced it to be highly developed so that those costs are recouped through use rather than simple appreciation through re-sale. In the "end-game" of Monaco, Auckland has a population of 45 million and individual land ownership matters less than sheer intensification.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Rentals in Christchurch are a nightmare. If you don't want to share a laundry/other spaces you're looking at at least $350 and even then we're talking about a dilapidated shack in a ~literal~ Fallout: Christchurch wasteland unless you want to live in New Brighton which has gone really really down hill and this is coming from someone who grew up on very much the wrong side of the tracks (Phillipstown). We took a place a year and a half ago for $250 a week that had severe liquefaction, carpets utterly stained with animal piss, connected to a condemned empty flat with squatters and was just generally really filthy and cleaned it up out of our our own pocket since that was really the only option. Now we're kinda stuck here since nothing liveable is coming on the market in our price range. Winge winge, but in the end I just imagine how much different things would have been if the government had actually held insurance companies to the policies they'd been selling and issued a maximum resolution time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Pararoid posted:Rentals in Christchurch are a nightmare. If you don't want to share a laundry/other spaces you're looking at at least $350 and even then we're talking about a dilapidated shack in a ~literal~ Fallout: Christchurch wasteland unless you want to live in New Brighton which has gone really really down hill and this is coming from someone who grew up on very much the wrong side of the tracks (Phillipstown). I live in Christchurch and was lucky to find a fairly decent place for my partner & myself at $380/week, which is basically a 2 bedroom (one double, one single) flat, one of four built on what used to be Ye Olde Quarter Acre. Very lucky in the fact that the landlord wanted "low maintenance" tenants and pretty much picked us as the preferred choice even before we handed the application in. In my ~10 minute walk from home to work (or vice versa) there are at least 4 houses under construction (2 storied town houses) and a few more undergoing repairs (earthquake repairs still ongoing I guess). I've also heard that some landlords are needing to lower rents to attract tenants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
There's an article comparing Toronto's bubble to Auckland's: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11442645 In short, there was an economic downturn, and immigration halted. Suddenly there wasn't the ever increasing population looking for somewhere to live, in fact some people left the city and went to live elsewhere with a better economy. House prices CAN drop, they've done it many times in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:There's really no shortage of places to live. There's a dozen or so apartment complexes being built right now around the central city alone, there's tonnes of low-cost shitbox apartments already sitting empty in my own complex, and there's the increasingly popular area around SkyCity and Queen Street doorways. The only demographic really seeing an actual shortage is the Quarter Acre Block dwellers. Media reports indicate otherwise... quote:Desperate Aucklanders are bribing rental agents in a city plagued by a lack of rental properties. Auckland got sold a bum rap with some lovely apartment complexes in the 1980s/1990s and now people are extremely skeptical of them. The other issue is that not everyone can transplant their living situation into an apartment scenario, beit tenanting or ownership. It's also completely foreign to what most people know as a typical house, and so are the costs and standards of living that come with them. Hell, banks used to be extremely apprehensive about lending against them. Hopefully the newer stuff doesn't suck as much as what we have seen in the past and there'll be more of them once the CRL/CBD transformation stuff gets into high gear in 2025 but I don't think you can realistically say "there are empty apartments in the CBD" and use that to prove that people aren't finding it tough to get rental accommodation across the whole city, regardless of what they actually need in a rental. Butt Wizard fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
We stayed in some really nice apartments in the Gold Coast a few weeks ago and could have easily seen ourselves living in one if something of the like existed in Auckland. I had wondered why there weren't apartments like that in Auckland, but assumed it was because people all want the backyard and front lawn, despite also wanting to live in the biggest city in NZ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Rachel Glucina's resigned Good. She can gently caress right off, preferably off the nearest cliff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
To tv3
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
i think there's a lack of rentals but equally (and contributing to the lack of rentals) is the problem where the market is such a bubble people are buying houses not to live in or rent out but to sell a month later there is evidence that the number of empty houses is rising in many areas of Auckland that's just one part of the crisis though
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Displeased Moo Cow posted:To tv3 So out of sight, out of mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:Media reports indicate otherwise... Rentals have a huge queue not because there's a lack of supply, but because the supply doesn't match the demand. I've been looking to move for two months+ and there are studios/one bedrooms that have sat on the market that entire time because they are uninhabitable small (by New Zealand standards) and not priced appropriately. The recently finished complex down the road was fully sold to investors half a year before beginning construction with more than two dozen apartments going straight onto the rental market when it was finished, but there are very few lights on because those are brand new two-bedrooms going for $650-$850+ a week. That $480 a week isn't popular because there's nothing out there, it's popular because outside of it being a slum it's a good price for a 2 bedroom in a market saturated by student-exchange shoeboxes and luxury apartments aimed at the people who can afford not to live in an apartment. I wasn't using it to say people aren't finding it tough to get rental accommodation - I was saying that they are finding it tough for reasons that aren't raw supply. Banks are still apprehensive about lending for apartments, as I found out last month when I went looking for pre-approval.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:i think there's a lack of rentals but equally (and contributing to the lack of rentals) is the problem where the market is such a bubble people are buying houses not to live in or rent out but to sell a month later Clearly long-term squatting is the answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Binkenstein posted:I live in Christchurch and was lucky to find a fairly decent place for my partner & myself at $380/week, which is basically a 2 bedroom (one double, one single) flat, one of four built on what used to be Ye Olde Quarter Acre. Very lucky in the fact that the landlord wanted "low maintenance" tenants and pretty much picked us as the preferred choice even before we handed the application in. Where abouts in town man?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:TVNZ meanwhile is reporting that the census revealed 22,000 empty homes and that 10% of Takapuna was uninhabited for whatever reason while it was going on. Are those empty rentals or empty properties?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Census workers can't distinguish between the two, so both. It's by no means a good statistic, other than census noting that this number has increased over the years, but even excusing all of it as simply rental churn there's something seriously wrong when 10% of an affluent central suburb is uninhabited due to churn at a given time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
haha so has Joyce just been treating MBIE like his own little fiefdom or what
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Basically. He's the most extreme micromanager ever apparently
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Double post but according to Paddy Gower, Colin Craig is being ousted at the Conservative board meeting tomorrow. E: Of all the weird and wonderful poo poo he did, apparently it was the sauna with David Farrier that has his party pissed enough to chuck him http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/sauna-puts-heat-on-colin-craig-in-more-ways-than-one-2015061818#axzz3dBbPTVGk voiceless anal fricative fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
More or less than Murray McCully?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
fong posted:Double post but according to Paddy Gower, Colin Craig is being ousted at the Conservative board meeting tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
I love the part where he says all his donations to the party were actually loans so they may not actually be able to afford to get rid of him; that's some great irony.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
My hope is he'll be replaced by someone equally incompetent and Theyll fade into obscurity. My worry is that he's poured enough money into the advertising that theyre a legitimate party, and they'll stick around with a better leader.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
fong posted:My hope is he'll be replaced by someone equally incompetent and Theyll fade into obscurity. My worry is that he's poured enough money into the advertising that theyre a legitimate party, and they'll stick around with a better leader. Agreed. I'm not sure David Farrier has done us any favors on this one 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
NZAmoeba posted:House prices CAN drop, they've done it many times in the past. Not in Auckland.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
dusty posted:Not in Auckland. it's true, in Auckland they can only ever go up, there is no limit, never been a better time to invest
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
I'm hoping I can at least get something after it crashes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
So...what you guys are telling me is that all I have to do is wait for this inevitable crash and I would then be (theoretically, if I had money, which I don't) buy a reasonable house for a reasonable price? And everyone buying property as a long-term investment is an idiot?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Well over long periods of time the value will continue upwards. Right now people are successfully making good short term gains. Plus it's not clear how much lower it would drop anyway, perhaps it would never get "reasonable"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:So...what you guys are telling me is that all I have to do is wait for this inevitable crash and I would then be (theoretically, if I had money, which I don't) buy a reasonable house for a reasonable price? And everyone buying property as a long-term investment is an idiot? To take a somewhat cynical view, that would be way too good. When the situation gets bad enough the govt will do some half assed minimum effort thing that makes it bad for everyone, but less bad for the rich
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Well over long periods of time the value will continue upwards. Right now people are successfully making good short term gains. Well the alternative is that in 10 years time Hern bay will be a 35million dollar suburb. So at some point it will stop the upwards trend and return to the long term average (like everywhere else has). Just to be clear, the issue is not that properties are going up in price (you would expect them to stay in pace with inflation), but more that house price inflation has been outstripping wage inflation by a good 10-15% per year for the last 5+ years (and a lower value for the last 20-30 years since the 80's crash). And if it keeps going them we might as well be back in the feudal system with the landed gentry and the rentier/surf class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Yeah, but in the meantime Auckland's population is constantly increasing and all those people need a place to live too so I don't understand what 'natural' values would be in this case. Slavvy posted:So...what you guys are telling me is that all I have to do is wait for this inevitable crash and I would then be (theoretically, if I had money, which I don't) buy a reasonable house for a reasonable price? And everyone buying property as a long-term investment is an idiot? Well, you're relying on a speculation boom and bust in the near future, and the population of Auckland to stop increasing, or maybe global financial crisis II or a Natural Disaster. Also, prices tend to drop most in the top end of the market. AFAIK, Rental properties under the power lines in Otara aren't much more than they were a decade ago, especially allowing for inflation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Jaguars! posted:Well, you're relying on a Natural Disaster. True, but I didn't account that he'd get a third term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
OK, that made me laugh 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 02:08
|
|