|
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 | ||
|
Have you been paying attention to the political discourse for the last ten years because refusing to listen to the other guy then screaming that he's evil is pretty much how it's done now.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Calling for a lower immigration rate is not the same as being anti-immigrant, does basic poo poo like this really need to be spelled out. No we can literally never lower immigration rates, only increase.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Calling for a lower immigration rate is not the same as being anti-immigrant, does basic poo poo like this really need to be spelled out. Yeah, one's an effect, the other is a cause, thanks for playing? What other reason could one have for wanting a lower immigration rate? What problem is it solving? Be sure that your answer can't easily be tagged with something along the lines of 'because immigrants are the cause of the problem' or 'which is caused by immigrants' to turn it into an anti-immigrant viewpoint because- to just lay my hand on the table here- that's gonna be my first response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Let me sell my house in lower Thornton first tia first against the wall, imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:first against the wall, imo he lives overseas too foreign investors 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
The Schwa posted:he lives overseas too In asia too, despite his surname meeting the rigorous standards for not-foreignishness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Calling for a lower immigration rate is not the same as being anti-immigrant, does basic poo poo like this really need to be spelled out. What does a lower immigration rate do? Spell it out for me I'm a dumb. I've yet to see a satisfactory answer in this thread; the idea that it will somehow solve the housing crisis is laughable so don't use that one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:It was aimed at the racist currently known as "whiter than a Wilco show" 2015: India 2014: India 2013: UK 2012: UK 2011: India 2010: UK 2009: UK 2008: UK 2007: UK 2006: UK 2005: UK It's me, I'm the anti British racist. I'm totally willing to concede it's a dumb idea. The point is it's gotten desperately bad enough that I'll at least consider just about anything that will ease the housing crisis. Screaming racist doesn't stop anyone from considering an option in desperate times. In my very first post I said that the idea can't be discussed because of these kind of histrionic, fact denying responses (see list of where migrants actually come from above). If you can't discuss the idea, you can't debunk it. This is honestly why middle NZ votes National. They might gently caress everyone's lives up, but at least they don't scream that you're an rear end in a top hat to your face while they do it (beneficiaries excluded).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
whiter than a Wilco show posted:2015: India What you're conveniently leaving out here is that migrants from the UK made up 29% of residence approvals in 2005 and that has gone down every year after that. In 2014/15 83% of residence approvals came from China, India, the Phillipines and Samoa. So what you're really worried about is non-white immigration to New Zealand. Because you are a racist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:What you're conveniently leaving out here is that migrants from the UK made up 29% of residence approvals in 2005 and that has gone down every year after that. In 2014/15 83% of residence approvals came from China, India, the Phillipines and Samoa. So what you're really worried about is non-white immigration to New Zealand. Because you are a racist. You are the reason you can't have the world you want
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Oh no, all those poor middle NZers who are totally having 'you're racist' screamed in their faces every day. No, no they don't, you idiot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Oh right got it, it's better to feel smugly self righteous for 5 minutes then actually attempt to change anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
whiter than a Wilco show posted:Oh right got it, it's better to feel smugly self righteous for 5 minutes then actually attempt to change anything. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Obviously if it's racist to want less people coming in, it can't be racist to want less people to leave, and by doing so you'd trap valuable skill sets that could earn tens of thousands more in a country without an intentionally depressed labour market. We should end emigration and dam that leak so that our labour market can be depressed to Chinese levels, enabling us to build more houses on a scale we've never dreamed of before, massively transforming our economy into an international powerhouse for however long we can continue to plow cheap human resources into construction jobs that far outweigh our needs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:What does a lower immigration rate do? Spell it out for me I'm a dumb. Why is the idea that lower net migration(as part of a broad strategy) would ease pressure on Auckland's housing stocks laughable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Why is the idea that lower net migration(as part of a broad strategy) would ease pressure on Auckland's housing stocks laughable? Can someone do the math? I'd wager that even if you stopped all immigration temporarily, you would still have people living in garages and cars. The houses aren't going to magically appear, employers aren't going to suddenly want to pay a living wage. How many houses do you think would be freed up exactly? Or do you think we should start kicking those foreigners out too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:What you're conveniently leaving out here is that migrants from the UK made up 29% of residence approvals in 2005 and that has gone down every year after that. In 2014/15 83% of residence approvals came from China, India, the Phillipines and Samoa. So what you're really worried about is non-white immigration to New Zealand. Because you are a racist. This is a bit unfair. Whether he's racist or not aside, the region of origin of migrants isn't the only thing that's changed over the last 10 years. Consider that the number of people leaving NZ has decreased drastically too - eg from a net loss of about 50000/year to Australia 5 years ago, to now, where we have a small net gain from Australia instead. However our immigration targets were based on the former rate (of fairly high loss of skilled/educated workers) which began in the 90s and had increased every year until about 2012 - not coincidentally 90s is also when NZ opened up immigration considerably. However the targets haven't changed to account for that rate reversal. Like I don't think anyone here would disagree that lowering immigration numbers is the political rallying call of racists all over the world. But net migration is also a main determinant in population growth, and as the Greens have pointed out (going back to the genesis of this little melt down), NZ's growth rate has historically been around 1%/year. Changes to accommodate a higher rate of population growth are obviously possible, but they aren't happening currently and even if we do have a govt willing to address the needs of higher pop growth (like ensuring there are enough houses, schools, etc for everyone, which there currently aren't) then lowering net migration is one way to help things catch up in the short term. voiceless anal fricative fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:Can someone do the math? I'd wager that even if you stopped all immigration temporarily, you would still have people living in garages and cars. The houses aren't going to magically appear, employers aren't going to suddenly want to pay a living wage. Why do you guys keep pretending that you're arguing against the position that lower migration will completely solve the crisis by itself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
I'm not saying it won't completely fix it, I'm saying it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Even the Nat's proposed 5000 reduction, generously assuming 3 people per household, would be the equivalent of building 1666 new houses per year. Thats not nothing, though I guess I could see an argument that it's small and thus not worth the social cost of lending legitimacy to the racist discourse of anti-immigrant populists? There's also the loss of culture/money/skills those immigrants would bring ofc but that can't really be quantified (the skills can but the rest can't)
voiceless anal fricative fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Excellent point. Besides we have plenty of Indian and Malaysian and Chinese already Wrong opinions ITT. I dream of a country with a fantastic laksa on every corner and in every belly. This is currently not the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
The Rabbi T. White posted:Wrong opinions ITT. I dream of a country with a fantastic laksa on every corner and in every belly. This is currently not the case. Good laksa density in Auckland is surprisingly low, it's true
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
In that case, open the borders to any and all Malaysian peeps. Laksa rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Even the Nat's proposed 5000 reduction, generously assuming 3 people per household, would be the equivalent of building 1666 new houses per year. Thats not nothing, though I guess I could see an argument that it's small and thus not worth the social cost of lending legitimacy to the racist discourse of anti-immigrant populists? There's also the loss of culture/money/skills those immigrants would bring ofc but that can't really be quantified (the skills can but the rest can't) bike tory posted:Good laksa density in Auckland is surprisingly low, it's true
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
I guess I'd just rather be a racist than another bougy "liberal" classist brutally loving the poor while using the correct buzzwords to maintain social standing and whining when Key inevitably gets elected every term for the rest of his unnatural lifespan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Immigration is good, a small select group having a stranglehold on home ownership isn't There I said it
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
I feel like there are some misconceptions itt about population growth and infrastructure growth. In NZ neither are static, it's not like there are NO houses/schools/doctor's clinics etc being built, it's just that the rate at which they are is outstripped by population growth at the moment. Infrastructure development and investment is a fraught political issue and takes a while to change - like 4-8 years at least, as we've seen in Auckland where even talk of a response to housing shortage is years too late. Net migration is like a pressure valve in both directions because numbers can be adjusted very easily and quickly - for example we increase immigration to meet skills shortages, as we have done for the past 20 odd years. However it necessarily works the other way too, like now when economic conditions mean lots of expats are coming back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Ok so we can probably agree that migrants who bring yummy food: good. Migrants who buy and use up housing in Auckland: bad. This is the basis for our new immigration policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
All of the quarter acre white people should just stop moaning and leave Auckland to the migrants who statistically don't want to live in the rest of the country anyway. Suddenly houses are affordable for both demographics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Within the very real constrains of the hand dealt to us by local and central government, Christchurch is already building as many houses as is reasonable, and yet property prices and rentals are out of control here, as they are elsewhere. Can someone explain to me how not bringing in thousands of extra people will do nothing to impact a rental market that is literally a whisker away from either beginning to fall, or rise, based purely on demand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Because house prices are now driven by speculation based on a perceived lack of long-term supply and therefore an ability to make money from the market's inability to service the demand and not by the real lack of long-term supply or demand for homes. Decreasing actual demand by reducing immigration won't decrease speculative demand, and increasing actual supply by building houses won't decrease prices because speculative demand will simply rise in response to again restrict actual supply and protect speculative money - pulling these brakes will either fail to slow the money train appreciably, or if they're pulled hard enough simply derail it. They cannot stop it because the market will now only respond to changes on speculative demand side, which you need to brake through investment rules, taxes, or other financial levers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Good laksa density in Auckland is surprisingly low, it's true Mamak in Takapuna is quite good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Mamak in Takapuna is quite good. Confirmed. That's about it, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
There's a real lack of cheap and dodgy(ie great) Asian foodcourts up in the far North, it's a bummer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Pretty much the only thing Howick has going for it is that it's right next to Meadowlands, which has some of the best Asian food in the city. Chongqing Cuisine's pork belly and mushroom noodle soup is the best loving thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Because house prices are now driven by speculation based on a perceived lack of long-term supply and therefore an ability to make money from the market's inability to service the demand and not by the real lack of long-term supply or demand for homes. Decreasing actual demand by reducing immigration won't decrease speculative demand, and increasing actual supply by building houses won't decrease prices because speculative demand will simply rise in response to again restrict actual supply and protect speculative money - pulling these brakes will either fail to slow the money train appreciably, or if they're pulled hard enough simply derail it. They cannot stop it because the market will now only respond to changes on speculative demand side, which you need to brake through investment rules, taxes, or other financial levers. So Tulips then? The Government isn't going to pop the bubble because it makes the GDP numbers look good. There is also no reason why popping the bubble excludes lowering real demand by changing our immigration policy as popping will still leave people living in garages as outside money will still come in snapping up those now cheaper properties well before they get anywhere near the bottom. It is all part of the tool box the government is refusing to use like social housing, zoning for high raise apartments, improving real wages, taxation, investment policy and so on. Not talking about immigration in this context because of perceived racism is playing into the current government's narrative of half assing housing reform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:On the other hand, Bubble Tea is in pleasing abundance. You can keep your cum drinks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Because house prices are now driven by speculation based on a perceived lack of long-term supply and therefore an ability to make money from the market's inability to service the demand and not by the real lack of long-term supply or demand for homes. Decreasing actual demand by reducing immigration won't decrease speculative demand, and increasing actual supply by building houses won't decrease prices because speculative demand will simply rise in response to again restrict actual supply and protect speculative money - pulling these brakes will either fail to slow the money train appreciably, or if they're pulled hard enough simply derail it. They cannot stop it because the market will now only respond to changes on speculative demand side, which you need to brake through investment rules, taxes, or other financial levers. "Speculative demand" is not some weird beast completely independent from the simple requirement for each person to be housed. Of course the perception of long term supply gaps is baked into prices, but if anything this means that actual changes that change this perception are likely to decrease prices even before they actually have real effects on the lack of housing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
The Rabbi T. White posted:Confirmed. That's about it, though. The soft-shell crab is pretty good. Also, Water Drop Cafe in Flat Bush, if you're OK with Taiwanese buddhist vegan food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
newtestleper posted:"Speculative demand" is not some weird beast completely independent from the simple requirement for each person to be housed. Of course the perception of long term supply gaps is baked into prices, but if anything this means that actual changes that change this perception are likely to decrease prices even before they actually have real effects on the lack of housing. Speculative demand also affects prices much more so than rents, which are better measure of actual demand. Anyone want to share how much rent theyre paying in Auckland rn?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:17
|
|