NZGames.com Forums
Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Go Back   NZGames.com Forums > General > Open Discussion > Politics
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12th September 2018, 12:12     #4521
crocos
 
And futurists wonder why people hate them.

Certainly it's going to go along something like that eventually, however I suspect it won't be whole-hog along the ways you've described.

My guess is anyone in a creative niche is going to come to the fore; knowledge of a rare language isn't intrinsically creative so is going to be less valued, especially as computers are increasing in their ability to learn languages. Eventually (and it won't be sudden or even all that soon) the number of languages will dwindle hugely. Not through any deliberate campaign or dislike, but through sheer irrelevance, much as the Maori language in it's six or so dialects has been dwindling. Right now Maori culture is very much alive, if considerably changed, and the language still survives, but because of the momentum of irrelevance it's going to take a concerted effort to ensure it survives going forward.

Is it worth it? Who knows - for me I'd say yes, even though I have no talent for learning more than small snatches in other languages (for various reasons I'm not going into here), but that's something that each individual needs to decide. If enough of them decide in favour to DO something about it, then the language will survive and it's relevance increase. NZ has the opportunity if anywhere does.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N

وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2018, 12:37     #4522
blynk
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
But Judith Collin's position (and bear in mind that I'm not saying this is my position) is that Labour's policies will make it uneconomical or unattractive for people to be landlords. So when Ma and Pa Landlord sell their rental property, Judith is saying that it won't necessarily be bought by another person looking to become a landlord as an investment.

So if the house is not being bought by a landlord, who buys it? Potentially someone who intends to live in it. Which is fine. But before you lean back and feel smugly content, keep in mind that this property is still going to be sold at market rates. Which at this time are deemed 'unaffordable'. The house will still get sold - don't you worry about that. But it won't do anything to make the housing make more affordable. And the more unaffordable the housing market, the more people will stay living lifelong in rental properties. And what do rental properties need? Landlords!
I must of missed the part where this turned into talking about affordable housing.

This whole piece of work is around living standards for those that have to rent, and yes most of them are unlikely to ever be able to purchase a house.
But if Ma & Pa sell their rented property, its likely to go to someone that was renting, so is not renting anymore (No Change), or an investor that is likely to keep renting it (No Change).
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2018, 14:52     #4523
fixed_truth
 
^Apparently the argument from the property institute is that first home buyers have less in a household then a rented household.

Which assumes that most buyers aren't families but couples going from a group flatting situation rather than from renting alone to buying. Also that these couples don't rent a room to cover costs. Would be interesting to some stats of the current situation.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2018, 09:06     #4524
Juju
get to da choppa
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
^Apparently the argument from the property institute is that first home buyers have less in a household then a rented household.

Which assumes that most buyers aren't families but couples going from a group flatting situation rather than from renting alone to buying. Also that these couples don't rent a room to cover costs. Would be interesting to some stats of the current situation.
So a better metric for the argument is that putting a rental on the market reduces the number of rooms, not properties.

Fair point. But then you could argue that first home buyers typically expand to a family within ~5 years - population growth that has been absorbed without a change in the house numbers.
So, while short term, the argument stacks up - long term it all goes back to "no change".
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2018, 09:19     #4525
blynk
 
I would say that traditionally first home buyers would not rent a room out.
But I don't know if that would still hold true in the current market.

If they are stretched to take on a mortgage, they will get a room mate.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2018, 16:51     #4526
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blynk
I must of missed the part where this turned into talking about affordable housing.

They're inextricably linked.

Quote:
This whole piece of work is around living standards for those that have to rent, and yes most of them are unlikely to ever be able to purchase a house.
But if Ma & Pa sell their rented property, its likely to go to someone that was renting, so is not renting anymore (No Change)

It means there would be fewer rental properties available. The more landlords give up on property as an investment, the fewer houses there are available to rent. If there are not fewer houses to rent, then the rent will go up to cover the landlords costs.


Quote:
or an investor that is likely to keep renting it (No Change).

That's making an assumption that there will always be an investor looking to be a landlord who will scoop up a property to give somebody somewhere to live. But you need to remember that Labour hates landlords and is trying to discourage property as an investment.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2018, 16:54     #4527
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Yep your waffle hasn't answered the question.

Y'know, I made a genuine attempt to explain my point of view without calling you a stupid cunt once. It turns out you really are too stupid to understand any of it.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2018, 17:39     #4528
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nich
The job market has evolved and the education system blinked.\
https://www.workandmoney.com/s/dying...f89af396e34d92
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2018, 22:08     #4529
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
Y'know, I made a genuine attempt to explain my point of view without calling you a stupid cunt once. It turns out you really are too stupid to understand any of it.
Gee, thanks for your restraint and patience, oh wise one
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2018, 22:15     #4530
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juju
So a better metric for the argument is that putting a rental on the market reduces the number of rooms, not properties.

Fair point. But then you could argue that first home buyers typically expand to a family within ~5 years - population growth that has been absorbed without a change in the house numbers.
So, while short term, the argument stacks up - long term it all goes back to "no change".
Yeah I guess any initial reduction of rooms would depend on their previous living situation compared to what they buy ie, going from sharing a room in a flat to their own 3 bedroom is a reduction of two whereas if they were previously renting a three bedroom flat then buying would be a zero reduction. Also if a couple already had kids then there's probably no reduction in rooms.
Imo until housing supply gets going rent will keep increasing and it would probably need some kind of tax on the massive capital gains landlords are getting to see any significant exodus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blynk
I would say that traditionally first home buyers would not rent a room out.
But I don't know if that would still hold true in the current market.

If they are stretched to take on a mortgage, they will get a room mate.
It seems to be more & more common but that's just speaking anecdotally.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2018, 00:16     #4531
Nich
 
Quote:
Middle Managers
Dear god please yes!
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2018, 09:10     #4532
blynk
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
It means there would be fewer rental properties available. The more landlords give up on property as an investment, the fewer houses there are available to rent.
Can you not understand that if there are fewer rental properties then its because people have purchased them and are therefore not looking for a rental property.

Lets try and example
there are 1000 rental properties and 1000 renting families.
200 of these landlords give up and sell the houses.
They either go to existing (or new) landlords - so still 1000 rentals for 1000 families.
Or they will be bought by those renting families - so 800 rentals for 800 families.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2018, 10:48     #4533
Cyberbob
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blynk
Can you not understand that if there are fewer rental properties then its because people have purchased them and are therefore not looking for a rental property.

Lets try and example
there are 1000 rental properties and 1000 renting families.
200 of these landlords give up and sell the houses.
They either go to existing (or new) landlords - so still 1000 rentals for 1000 families.
Or they will be bought by those renting families - so 800 rentals for 800 families.
What happened to option 3: The new buyers choose to live there, and came from out of the area. You've now got 1000 renting families wanting to stay in the area, and 800 homes in said area.

Those buying the 200 homes aren't necessarily families currently renting, and don't necessarily want to become landlords.
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ

Last edited by Cyberbob : 14th September 2018 at 10:49.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2018, 11:35     #4534
blynk
 
I would put that into the category of current housing shortage in Auckland.
Not a rental issue because of some changes to rental property rules.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2018, 16:25     #4535
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blynk
Can you not understand that if there are fewer rental properties then its because people have purchased them and are therefore not looking for a rental property.

Can you not understand that the number of people renting does not have a fixed ceiling?

Quote:
Lets try and example
there are 1000 rental properties and 1000 renting families.
200 of these landlords give up and sell the houses.
They either go to existing (or new) landlords - so still 1000 rentals for 1000 families.
Or they will be bought by those renting families - so 800 rentals for 800 families.

And then there's Bob's example: people buy the house to live in. You can't just sweep that under the rug by pretending it's just a 'housing shortage in Auckland' thing. It's a supply and demand thing - full stop.

You're also assuming that people who are renting actually have the money to afford to buy a house. You're completely ignoring what I said about people who are lifelong renters.


Quote:
Originally Posted by blynk
I would put that into the category of current housing shortage in Auckland.
Not a rental issue because of some changes to rental property rules.

It IS a rental issue if the govt drives landlords away from being landlords. Like I said before - the two are inextricably linked. One affects the other and it's impossible to make a policy which only affects one market without affecting the other.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2018, 17:17     #4536
blynk
 
So where are all these people that will come out of woodwork live now?
They aren't renting, and they don't own their own home?

Ok, if we are talking about everything

100,000 own home
10,000 rentals & 10,000 renters
1,000 living somewhere else

So 2000 of those rentals are sold. Lets say all the other people buy one of these

102,000 own home
8000 rentals & 8000 renters
1,000 living somewhere else.

We are in the same position. Yes there is an issue that some renters now don't have a property. But we already had that.

So this is a housing shortage issue, not am issue of changing rental rules.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2018, 19:11     #4537
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
it's ok guys Labour just unveiled 18 Kiwibuild houses, all you need is a minimum $650,000
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2018, 19:36     #4538
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blynk
So where are all these people that will come out of woodwork live now?
They aren't renting, and they don't own their own home?

Apparently, some are living in motels, cars, etc. Take a look further in your post where you said Yes there is an issue that some renters now don't have a property. But we already had that. So you're acknowledging that to be the case.

Others have been living with their parents and are moving out of home. And, as Bob said, some come from out of the area. Immigrants, in other words.

Some people are New Zealanders who are moving from a part of NZ that doesn't have a shortage of rental properties (say, I dunno, Palmerston North?) to a place that does (say, Auckland). So if a renting family moves from Palmy to Auckland, then there is now one more rental property available in Palmy and one less rental property available in Auckland. Overall, no change. But within Auckland, you now have more people competing for rental properties. Would you want to exacerbate that by giving landlords reason to quit the game and end up with fewer rental properties for more renters?


Quote:
Ok, if we are talking about everything

100,000 own home
10,000 rentals & 10,000 renters
1,000 living somewhere else

So 2000 of those rentals are sold. Lets say all the other people buy one of these

102,000 own home
8000 rentals & 8000 renters
1,000 living somewhere else.

We are in the same position.

That's a nice exercise, but your numbers are too basic to reflect the reality of the situation.


Quote:
Yes there is an issue that some renters now don't have a property. But we already had that.

And Judith Collin's position is that Labour policies will exacerbate that.



Quote:
So this is a housing shortage issue, not am issue of changing rental rules.

Like I keep saying - they're inextricably linked. You're putting your head in the sand to pretend otherwise. A shortage of housing creates a shortage of rental properties. You simply cannot deny that and you cannot separate them into individually compartmentalised issues.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2018, 21:50     #4539
Lightspeed
 
Where to now for the Chief Technology Officer role?

Does anyone want the job? Ab, would you come home and do it?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2018, 11:08     #4540
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ab
it's ok guys Labour just unveiled 18 Kiwibuild houses, all you need is a minimum $650,000
True, if people want to include immigration stresses when critiquing Labour's policys then their increasing supply should also be considered.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2018, 11:20     #4541
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Want to be rich? Don't be born poor. Only one in 100 entrants to our elite university courses come from the most deprived homes, a Weekend Herald investigation has found.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12123299

This is really the result of an uninformed middle class whom political parties have to pander to.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2018, 17:38     #4542
Lightspeed
 
It's a good thing our economy is built around dumb industries and getting dumber. No need for people to get an education. That's what's happening right? More jobs for less skills? And to think, there was that stupid "knowledge economy" idea floating around about a decade ago. Good thing we nipped that idea in the bud. Those were some wise leaders.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2018, 11:13     #4543
fixed_truth
 
NZ economy may not be as slow as business confidence suggests - for now
Quote:
The Reserve Bank indicated at the start of August that while it expected economic growth to pick up, there was a risk that business confidence could slow activity
Maybe we should stop doing business confidence surveys if it's not good for the economy.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2018, 13:16     #4544
Lightspeed
 
Yeah, but are these surveys about the economy, or about politics?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 14:08     #4545
Lightspeed
 
Things appear to be going well between North and South Korea right now, where the US aren't involved. It does appear like Kim genuinely wants to change the status quo for his country.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 16:00     #4546
Jodi
 
Re: Te Reo

Learning _any_ second language before the age of 13 should be compulsory. Locks in the brain's ability to learn languages before it loses it at the 13 year neuron purge.

Secondly, look around you dumb mono-lanuage white person, everyone else is smarter than you, and knows at least three languages. Pick up your game.

Te Reo is also a pretty neat language to learn too, more advanced that Latin based ones, but not fucking impossible like Arabic or Japanese.

Re: Housing crisis.

For fucks sake, make it unattractive to speculate on housing, and attractive to build and repair them instead. Make running rentals a zero sum charity rather than a profit seeking business. Ma and Pa should be investing in businesses and manufacturing, not rent seeking.

2c
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 16:06     #4547
blynk
 
I put my hand up as a mono languaged white person. Having young kids though is helping me though.

While I am not learning it (yet), it does appear to be a fucking easy language.
Once you know the 5 vowel sounds you can basically read it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 18:29     #4548
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodi
For fucks sake, make it unattractive to speculate on housing, and attractive to build and repair them instead. Make running rentals a zero sum charity rather than a profit seeking business. Ma and Pa should be investing in businesses and manufacturing, not rent seeking.

Who lets out the houses to tenants?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 18:46     #4549
Lightspeed
 
If only we had some model of housing that has been repeatedly successful in the past.

Oh, wait.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 19:13     #4550
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Does state housing take care of all rental housing needs?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 19:17     #4551
Lightspeed
 
Does it need to?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 20:14     #4552
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Who lets out the rest of the rental properties?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 20:18     #4553
Lightspeed
 
People with an empty house, who own it for reasons other than trying to make money without having to work?

What's your point? I know, stupid of me to ask, you've never been eager to make a point in the past, because "it's obvious".
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 20:32     #4554
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightspeed
People with an empty house, who own it for reasons other than trying to make money without having to work?

Seems highly unlikely.

Quote:
What's your point? I know, stupid of me to ask, you've never been eager to make a point in the past, because "it's obvious".

See, now you're doing your intellectually dishonest schtick. So you can go fuck yourself.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 21:03     #4555
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightspeed
make money without having to work?
Actually that sounds kinda sweet..?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 21:06     #4556
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
I think it's nonsense to suggest that a rental property doesn't involve any work. You can have a property manager do the bulk of it for you, but there's a cost.

And deadbeat tenants create even more work.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 21:20     #4557
Lightspeed
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ab
Actually that sounds kinda sweet..?
Yeah, everyone wants on the gravy train. What could go wrong?

Oh right, that's right, people giving most of their money to landlords, who in turn give it to banks who are the real home owners, inflating house prices, which means more money for the banks, further removing money from the economy

We've faced the problem of inadequate housing before and solved it without needing an abundance of landlords to house deadbeat tenants.

While home ownership is at a low and renting has become the norm, yet people are compelled to live in a garage or their car, you'd have to be a real fucking idiot to ask the question "aw but where will people live if there aren't landlords, eh".
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 22:19     #4558
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
I wish the facepalm icon still worked.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 22:23     #4559
Lightspeed
 
Laugh

Beats actually sharing your thoughts, AMIRITE?!
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2018, 23:06     #4560
DrTiTus
HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE
 
Considering the accommodation supplement/rent subsidies cost the taxpayer ~$2bn every year, it is obvious that this is not a free market - prices are distorted.

When prices are distorted/markets are not free, investors flock to the thing that is being propped up.

I say bring in regulation - whether it's one mortgaged property per person, loan to personal income ratios for rental properties (rather than loan to value ratios), or something else entirely. And get rid of that fucking accommodation supplement so that the market sets the price. Wages aren't going up, so bring down the cost of housing. Landlords might be forced to sell after the shock of no one being able to afford their overpriced shit box to service their high mortgage, but investment has risks associated with it. Boo hoo, their free ride didn't work out as planned. They may have to "give up the smashed avo on toast" or just be happy with one fucking house.

Historically, NZ has been supportive of home ownership. Te Ara has some info here. We have in the past had state provided low-interest mortgages, and state provided deposits.

$2 billion every year - going to, as Lightspeed points out, the banks effectively since most landlords are in fact borrowers themselves. Perpetuating poverty - families who will live in a state house for many years, yet never get any closer to owning it. Kids who will get no inheritance - no assistance from their parents to purchase a house of their own, who will then go on to cost taxpayers even more in the future.

But sure, let's be Mike fucking Hosking about things and make it a simple case of landlords are saints who provide shelter to those in need out of the goodness of their hearts, and the renters better be bloody grateful because the current market value of a house is sky high and has absolutely no relation to the amount of profit that can be extracted from people who are now priced out of buying for themselves.
__________________
Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2023
Site paid for by members (love you guys)