This thread makes me feel like I'm failing a reverse Turing Test.

freitasm:

 

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or if it's a real political position.

 

If it's a real position, I would say you have moved to extreme right side of the spectrum.

 

Based on the landlord hate he has been recieving, I see that post as sarcastic. In response to the hard hitting and genuine feelings of the other anti landlord posters

If landlords are a scourge and they were regulated tomorrow to sell off, then many people will be homeless, but the large decrease in house prices will mean that many more buyers will exist, but you still have all the homeless. Renting is normal, so owning a rental has to be normal. My home has risen a great deal, and always has over the years, does that mean that I am a scourge as well? No. Now, if all landlords bought rentals but left them empty, that would be a problem, but people live in these houses. 

The issue is supply, its easy to buy a house, can be a pain to build one. So past and future Governments need to incentivise builds (they do but its pitiful) and penalise buys, in order to shift citizens to adding to the housing stock 

GV27:

This thread makes me feel like I'm failing a reverse Turing Test.

tdgeek:

freitasm:

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or if it's a real political position.

If it's a real position, I would say you have moved to extreme right side of the spectrum.

Based on the landlord hate he has been recieving, I see that post as sarcastic. In response to the hard hitting and genuine feelings of the other anti landlord posters

If landlords are a scourge and they were regulated tomorrow to sell off, then many people will be homeless, but the large decrease in house prices will mean that many more buyers will exist, but you still have all the homeless. Renting is normal, so owning a rental has to be normal. My home has risen a great deal, and always has over the years, does that mean that I am a scourge as well? No. Now, if all landlords bought rentals but left them empty, that would be a problem, but people live in these houses. 

The issue is supply, its easy to buy a house, can be a pain to build one. So past and future Governments need to incentivise builds (they do but its pitiful) and penalise buys, in order to shift citizens to adding to the housing stock 

Handle9: 

The posts aren’t anti landlord. As a landlord I don’t feel remotely attacked by them.

" And I think you'll find the public opinion of landlords to be even more hostile than you've seen in this thread"

Just one of many. Similar to blaming Boomers for everything, same deal. Blame Game 

Handle9: 

The posts aren’t anti landlord. As a landlord I don’t feel remotely attacked by them.

So you are happy with the idea that you should be taxed out of existence and are nothing but a plague on society ?

tdgeek:

 

The issue is supply, its easy to buy a house, can be a pain to build one. So past and future Governments need to incentivise builds (they do but its pitiful) and penalise buys, in order to shift citizens to adding to the housing stock 

 

I mean it is and it isn't. The 20% deposit requirement locked many out when debt servicing costs were low, and now we have the opposite problem in a falling market - prices are down, which means smaller deposits, but servicing costs are way up and a bunch of other living costs are exploding too. 

As for building, National have stated they'll walk back on the wide-ranging urban density agreement they made with Labour. So the inner city areas get to do less and less of their fair share of intensification, and there'll be more reliance on greenfields development on the fringes, which brings with it sprawl, insane land prices and congestion through a lack of rapid transit, which National also don't want to build and opposes.

Seems like they've made a choice and I'm not going to reward that with my vote.

tdgeek:(...) Now, if all landlords bought rentals but left them empty, that would be a problem, but people live in these houses. 

 

I think we need to do something about houses being bought up and left empty as an investment.  There's one near me, a very nice family home that was sold in 2017 for $1.2M and has stood empty ever since, the previously well tended garden slowly turning to wilderness.

Maybe rates should be standard for the first year of emptiness then double every subsequent year?

GV27:

 

I mean it is and it isn't. The 20% deposit requirement locked many out when debt servicing costs were low, and now we have the opposite problem in a falling market - prices are down, which means smaller deposits, but servicing costs are way up and a bunch of other living costs are exploding too. 

 

As for building, National have stated they'll walk back on the wide-ranging urban density agreement they made with Labour. So the inner city areas get to do less and less of their fair share of intensification, and there'll be more reliance on greenfields development on the fringes, which brings with it sprawl, insane land prices and congestion through a lack of rapid transit, which National also don't want to build and opposes.

 

Seems like they've made a choice and I'm not going to reward that with my vote.

 

Putting todays issues aside, its about supply, that has decreased ever since the 70's when Governments built houses and made entry easier. Now they don't, and its easier to just recycle houses instead of entering the housing market with your own new house 

tdgeek:

 

Putting todays issues aside, its about supply, that has decreased ever since the 70's when Governments built houses and made entry easier. Now they don't, and its easier to just recycle houses instead of entering the housing market with your own new house 

 

Per head of population we were building twice as many houses back in the 1970s as we are now.

And back in the 1970s there were not the "tradies" and automation you have now. The builders built the frames on site, built the trusses on site, did their own concreting

plumbers did the roofing , no roofer back then. In many cases the builder also built the kitchen cabinets and built the windows and hung all the doors themselves too as well as install insulation (if there was any)

as well as glazed the windows. He also made the concrete piles in the weekends for future builds.

I spent quite a lot of my childhood on building sites, climbing over the frames of houses and woolsheds , no scaffolding back then nor "wrapping".

sir1963:

 

Per head of population we were building twice as many houses back in the 1970s as we are now.

 

The population was also only 2.8m in 1970. And we are adding 100K people PA on annually adjusted immigration stats. 

And, it goes without saying, the price of a house relative to household incomes was much lower; and we have also +10% p.a. food price growth and other inflation indicators are running red hot. 

Stats without context are just numbers. 

GV27:

 

The population was also only 2.8m in 1970. And we are adding 100K people PA on annually adjusted immigration stats. 

 

And, it goes without saying, the price of a house relative to household incomes was much lower; and we have also +10% p.a. food price growth and other inflation indicators are running red hot. 

 

Stats without context are just numbers. 

 

Yes, misusing stats is dicey....  If the multiplier was 3X back in the day, and say now its 10X, that didn't happen last year or the year before, its been continual over decades, so don't use stats to mislead. In those decades the issue rolled on year after year, and at some point it becomes a  barrier, we have arrived.  

House prices always rise, the common theme was double every 10 years, that's not a 2023 thing or a 2010 thing, its what happens over time. Inflation was higher back in the day so the net effect was less alarming. Again, population grows, immigration happens, but in broad terms we squeeze those extra bods into the same house numbers. IIRC NZ citizens build 40,000 houses a year so that helps, but supply has been continually eroded. Had Covid and Ukraine and the interest rate hikes from support mechanisms and global and demand inflation not occurred, house affiordability would just be a topic, but not the large barrier it is now, but that would be coming

If supply is not increased, nothing will change, everything else is just fiddling around the fringes

tdgeek:

 

If supply is not increased, nothing will change, everything else is just fiddling around the fringes

 

It's not just a case of increasing supply, it's a case of increasing supply at the correct levels price levels. 

If you add a bunch of two bedders into the market but price them at $900K, all you've done is suck up a bunch of time and materials and inflated the price of everything around it with more bedrooms. 

Housing has to be practical and affordable; we're going to end up in a situation where previously comfortable middle class dual income households can't have kids because of either mortgage pressure, space or both. People dismiss low birth rates as a thing that's happening anyway, but people who would have bigger families if they could but end up not having them is something we're not so good at talking about or measuring. 

We're good at building big houses but then sticking multi-million dollar price tags on them, or building them in places that require major commutes, or all of the above. At some point, that has predictable demographic consequences. 

GV27:

 

sir1963:

 

Per head of population we were building twice as many houses back in the 1970s as we are now.

 

 

The population was also only 2.8m in 1970. And we are adding 100K people PA on annually adjusted immigration stats. 

 

And, it goes without saying, the price of a house relative to household incomes was much lower; and we have also +10% p.a. food price growth and other inflation indicators are running red hot. 

 

Stats without context are just numbers. 

 

yes, we are building the same number of houses now 2023 as we were in the 1970s.

Meanwhile our population has doubled, is if that were taken into account we should be building twice as many today as we currently do.

The immigration stats also say we should be building even MORE than twice what we do.

Unemployment in 1974 was something 0.1%, we were not spending our money on welfare payments.

GV27:

 

It's not just a case of increasing supply, it's a case of increasing supply at the correct levels price levels. 

 

If you add a bunch of two bedders into the market but price them at $900K, all you've done is suck up a bunch of time and materials and inflated the price of everything around it with more bedrooms. 

 

Housing has to be practical and affordable; we're going to end up in a situation where previously comfortable middle class dual income households can't have kids because of either mortgage pressure, space or both. People dismiss low birth rates as a thing that's happening anyway, but people who would have bigger families if they could but end up not having them is something we're not so good at talking about or measuring. 

 

We're good at building big houses but then sticking multi-million dollar price tags on them, or building them in places that require major commutes, or all of the above. At some point, that has predictable demographic consequences. 

 

Had decades pf past Governments kept that ticking over, then the supply side will have tempered house prices. While inflation today is circa 6.9%, for many years its been low

Land, RMA and so on could have been tweaked as needed, but as usual, doesn't happen until its a problem. To govern, you need votes, no one would have cared about infrastructure and RMA reforms, they want tax cuts and and $ in the pocket gains, and all that is on us to a degree