Vancouver's Chinese property investors

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › Vancouver's Chinese property investors

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760172 10-Apr-2017 13:04

wellygary:

Linuxluver:

We're already there....and have been since the immigration floodgates opened in 2008 to allow National to gerrymander elections by bringing in people who will vote for them.

But thats just plain incorrect,

Only those with Residency/Citizenship can vote in NZ and if you look back at the number of permanent residency approval since 2000 you find very little change.... most of the headline "migration" numbers you see are students, (who can't vote), along with NZ/OZ citizens coming and going (which the govt has no control over)

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/research/migrants---monitoring/migration-trends-and-outlook-2015-16.pdf

Total residency approved and arrived (Page 37 and 39)

2001/02 50,619

2002/03 46,296

2003/04 37,676

2004/05 47,563

2005/06 50,122

2006/07 45,905

2007/08 45,026

2008/09 45,025

2009/10 44,559

2010/11 39,521

2011/12 39,356

2012/13 38,040

2013/14 42,672

2014/15 41,538

Also you would need to know how many of those people were buying houses rather than renting, and where.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1760177 10-Apr-2017 13:11

wellygary:
Linuxluver:

We're already there....and have been since the immigration floodgates opened in 2008 to allow National to gerrymander elections by bringing in people who will vote for them.

But thats just plain incorrect,

Only those with Residency/Citizenship can vote in NZ and if you look back at the number of permanent residency approval since 2000 you find very little change.... most of the headline "migration" numbers you see are students, (who can't vote), along with NZ/OZ citizens coming and going (which the govt has no control over)

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/research/migrants---monitoring/migration-trends-and-outlook-2015-16.pdf

Total residency approved and arrived (Page 37 and 39)

2001/02 50,619

2002/03 46,296

2003/04 37,676

2004/05 47,563

2005/06 50,122

2006/07 45,905

2007/08 45,026

2008/09 45,025

2009/10 44,559

2010/11 39,521

2011/12 39,356

2012/13 38,040

2013/14 42,672

2014/15 41,538

I am not sure that tells the whole story. We do also have students coming in as well as people on seasonal work who may decide to stay. Also the figures don't seem to get adjusted when NZ may have a lot of people returning to NZ, or the population increases from people having children. I mean are we actually building more than 40000 houses a year to cope with the population growth?

Figures like this get cherry picked to support a particular view, and the media are the same, but we actually need to see all the figures in one place, to get a full picture

wellygary

8328 posts

Uber Geek

#1760202 10-Apr-2017 13:40

Geektastic:

wellygary:

Linuxluver:

We're already there....and have been since the immigration floodgates opened in 2008 to allow National to gerrymander elections by bringing in people who will vote for them.

But thats just plain incorrect,

Only those with Residency/Citizenship can vote in NZ and if you look back at the number of permanent residency approval since 2000 you find very little change.... most of the headline "migration" numbers you see are students, (who can't vote), along with NZ/OZ citizens coming and going (which the govt has no control over)

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/research/migrants---monitoring/migration-trends-and-outlook-2015-16.pdf

Total residency approved and arrived (Page 37 and 39)

2001/02 50,619

[snip]

2014/15 41,538

Also you would need to know how many of those people were buying houses rather than renting, and where.

My point is not in any reference to property prices,

Simply whether migration policy changed in 2008 to increase the number of voters, and statistics show the annual number of those getting residency ( and thus able to vote) has been stable since 2000....

wellygary

8328 posts

Uber Geek

#1760207 10-Apr-2017 13:45

mattwnz:
wellygary:

Linuxluver:

We're already there....and have been since the immigration floodgates opened in 2008 to allow National to gerrymander elections by bringing in people who will vote for them.

But thats just plain incorrect,

Only those with Residency/Citizenship can vote in NZ and if you look back at the number of permanent residency approval since 2000 you find very little change.... most of the headline "migration" numbers you see are students, (who can't vote), along with NZ/OZ citizens coming and going (which the govt has no control over)

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/research/migrants---monitoring/migration-trends-and-outlook-2015-16.pdf

Total residency approved and arrived (Page 37 and 39)

2001/02 50,619

[snip]

2014/15 41,538

I am not sure that tells the whole story. We do also have students coming in as well as people on seasonal work who may decide to stay. Also the figures don't seem to get adjusted when NZ may have a lot of people returning to NZ, or the population increases from people having children. I mean are we actually building more than 40000 houses a year to cope with the population growth?

Figures like this get cherry picked to support a particular view, and the media are the same, but we actually need to see all the figures in one place, to get a full picture

The data relates to voters only, not overall population increases, or house prices or anything else..

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1760398 10-Apr-2017 19:32

tdgeek:

UHD:

Linuxluver:

UHD:

Linuxluver:

UHD:

All economists and analysts agree that the bulk of investment and speculation is done by Kiwis. A small portion (which only serves to further exacerbate an already out of control situation) is foreign investment but this is tiny compared to Kiwi money. The only organisations who are yet to get on board with the data seems to be NZ Herald/Stuff.

'Chinese investment' will always pale in comparison to the rampant speculation conducted by Kiwis regardless of how the Auckland market plays out. Global capital always looks for safe places to rest and NZ is relatively safe but there are still much safer and lucrative locations than Auckland in the world.

Those economists and analysts lump the Auckland market in with everywhere else and come up with a small nominal percentage.

It's effectively a lie.

Look at the level of foreign investment in the most desirable suburbs of Auckland and the percentage will leap to the skies.

Attend a few auctions and you soon understand the foreign investors tend to follow a "pay whatever it takes" strategy to buy the properties they want....so a relatively small (according to perceptions, not actual effects) portion of the buyers can have a HUGE impact on prices....and that is exactly what has happened.

Of course locals are the larger part of the market. No one is saying they aren't. But the "locals" are our very own "1%" (or 2% or whatever tiny portion it actually is) who already have access to the capital to buy the properties they want.

The other 99-ish% don't.

That's the problem right there.

Plus, looking at it on an annual basis is also misleading. Lets look across a decade. Go to some of the suburbs around central Auckland and see if you hear any English being spoken. Three percent a year is 30% after 10 years....and we are there.

I'm not anti-immigration. But I am 'anti' misleading reports about consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKGUwCb5GuA&t=1s

I'll give you a chance to do your own research and retract your position. Anecdotally considering auctions in desirable parts of Auckland isn't really a counter to any argument at all.

Eaqub is correct and I don't disagree with any of that. The fundamentals are bad. Neo-liberal policies have stunted wage growth, exported thousands of jobs that used to pay well, eliminated entire careers of skilled work that used to be done here and is now done elsewhere....and much else.

Into that mix - the cream on the cake - comes the all-time record immigration levels that are keeping the "rock star economy" afloat.....and adding that extra push to house prices which would, as Euqub rightly points out, have been rising anyway.....

But if the economy was flatter.....and immigration was lower.....like 70,000 people a year lower......then pressure on housing would be correspondingly reduced as we wouldn't have the extra 350,000-400,000 people who arrived since 2008 to accommodate.

If I have an argument at all it is one that avoids the black and white absolutes. I'm saying the all-time high immigration has added to the long term structural problems in a way - and with an intensity - that has had a big impact in the past few years.

I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that if there were 350,000 fewer people here looking for housing that prices would be as high now as they are.

No one disagrees that immigration is not a compounding factor on Auckland housing but it is a small one. The issue I have is that it is the first one mentioned in almost every discussion despite the fact that it is only a tiny portion of the problem. Which is exactly what you did...

And if the admittedly small numbers front up at every desirable auction and blow us out of the water? Its their capability to continually pay more than normal, that makes the higher prices the new norm.

Are you sure you're able to tell foreign investors and Kiwis of Asian ethnicity apart? I would wager you'd be unable to at any auction you turned up to no matter who was able to pay more than you.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1760456 10-Apr-2017 21:15

wellygary:

Linuxluver:

We're already there....and have been since the immigration floodgates opened in 2008 to allow National to gerrymander elections by bringing in people who will vote for them.

But thats just plain incorrect,

Only those with Residency/Citizenship can vote in NZ and if you look back at the number of permanent residency approval since 2000 you find very little change.... most of the headline "migration" numbers you see are students, (who can't vote), along with NZ/OZ citizens coming and going (which the govt has no control over)

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/research/migrants---monitoring/migration-trends-and-outlook-2015-16.pdf

Total residency approved and arrived (Page 37 and 39)

2001/02 50,619

2002/03 46,296

2003/04 37,676

2004/05 47,563

2005/06 50,122

2006/07 45,905

2007/08 45,026

2008/09 45,025

2009/10 44,559

2010/11 39,521

2011/12 39,356

2012/13 38,040

2013/14 42,672

2014/15 41,538

I'd love to see the country of origin breakdown over time....and what part of the country they live in.

That looks like an average of 45,000 x 14 = 630,000 new voters in 14 years. Granted some will be dead or will have left the country....and many of them probably don't even vote.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1760471 10-Apr-2017 21:48

Linuxluver:
wellygary:

Linuxluver:

We're already there....and have been since the immigration floodgates opened in 2008 to allow National to gerrymander elections by bringing in people who will vote for them.

But thats just plain incorrect,

Only those with Residency/Citizenship can vote in NZ and if you look back at the number of permanent residency approval since 2000 you find very little change.... most of the headline "migration" numbers you see are students, (who can't vote), along with NZ/OZ citizens coming and going (which the govt has no control over)

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/research/migrants---monitoring/migration-trends-and-outlook-2015-16.pdf

Total residency approved and arrived (Page 37 and 39)

2001/02 50,619

2002/03 46,296

2003/04 37,676

2004/05 47,563

2005/06 50,122

2006/07 45,905

2007/08 45,026

2008/09 45,025

2009/10 44,559

2010/11 39,521

2011/12 39,356

2012/13 38,040

2013/14 42,672

2014/15 41,538

I'd love to see the country of origin breakdown over time....and what part of the country they live in.

That looks like an average of 45,000 x 14 = 630,000 new voters in 14 years. Granted some will be dead or will have left the country....and many of them probably don't even vote.

I would be very surprised if all of those people vote National. What is the reason? I can't see it.

[Added bold to quote]

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760484 10-Apr-2017 22:27

Linuxluver:

wellygary:

Linuxluver:

We're already there....and have been since the immigration floodgates opened in 2008 to allow National to gerrymander elections by bringing in people who will vote for them.

But thats just plain incorrect,

Only those with Residency/Citizenship can vote in NZ and if you look back at the number of permanent residency approval since 2000 you find very little change.... most of the headline "migration" numbers you see are students, (who can't vote), along with NZ/OZ citizens coming and going (which the govt has no control over)

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/research/migrants---monitoring/migration-trends-and-outlook-2015-16.pdf

Total residency approved and arrived (Page 37 and 39)

2001/02 50,619

2002/03 46,296

2003/04 37,676

2004/05 47,563

2005/06 50,122

2006/07 45,905

2007/08 45,026

2008/09 45,025

2009/10 44,559

2010/11 39,521

2011/12 39,356

2012/13 38,040

2013/14 42,672

2014/15 41,538

I'd love to see the country of origin breakdown over time....and what part of the country they live in.

That looks like an average of 45,000 x 14 = 630,000 new voters in 14 years. Granted some will be dead or will have left the country....and many of them probably don't even vote.

I remember when we went through the Permanent Residency process (we were already here) there were extra points for not going to Auckland and that was ages ago. Since we were living and working in Wellington already, we just hoovered up the points and said thanks very much...!

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1760527 11-Apr-2017 01:51

House prices are subject to marginal pricing. This means that an overseas investor bidding or offering more on a house, pushes up the value of all surrounding houses. Which in turn means that local buyers have to pay more for them. It is actually similar to the share market. You only need a few more buyers than sellers for a share to increase in value. Doesn't matter if the company in question has a high total number of shares issued. If only a few people at any time are only selling a few shares, it doesn't take much extra demand for the price to go up.

Trademe says there are currently 10,931 residential properties for sale in Auckland. Some of those will be houses for removal and carparks. Now the above figure of 41,538 people being granted residency in 2014/15. Now imagine just 1 in 10 of those people buying a house. Then add in returning Kiwis and some Aussies immigrating to NZ. And of course alot of those people selling will be intending to buy another house. Immigration as a % of house sales is actually a large number.

And remember the supply side of housing is very inelastic. As Auckland prices have approx doubled since 2007. We definitely don't have double the rate of building occurring. Restrictive council rules mean that it is hard to build lots of new houses without a big increase in costs. And the official figures they use for new house building are based on consents granted for new houses. But are they nett or gross figures. Imagine a house gets burnt down and then rebuilt. Is that counted a new house in the official figures? What about if a house is demolished and 2 houses built on that section. Does that count as 2 new houses, Or only 1 new house?

Even if all of the new arrivals rent instead of buying. It will still increase rental demand and therefore rents. Higher rents make it harder for kiwis to save up a deposit. And mean that landlords can justify paying more to buy rental properties. The extra traffic congestion from higher immigration makes properties in more central areas worth more.

And the silliest part of all of this - if just 1 person decides to buy an existing house for say $1.5million. Instead of building a new house for the same price. The government misses out on $150,000 of GST + tax on company profits + PAYE tax on all of the workers involved. Now imagine if an extra 40,000 houses were getting built every year. That is a massive amount of tax that the government is missing out on. Hopefully everyone who constantly complains about not enough money for Health, Education, [whatever other area of government spending is important to them], Will realise how much money the councils are effectively "stealing" out of the tax take.

The money that is getting spent on larger mortgages and rents is also not available to the rest of the economy. It is not being spent in shops, or used to pay off debt, or used for savings. This means less commercial investment and less jobs. (never mind the number of new jobs we would have if 40,000 extra houses got built each year).

And finally, GDP per capita. It is mostly stagnant (and often falling). Which means that on average no improvement to the living standards of the average NZer. Despite the current high economic growth. So in reality all of this immigration hasn't increased one of the most important measures of an economy.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760661 11-Apr-2017 11:51

Aredwood:

House prices are subject to marginal pricing. This means that an overseas investor bidding or offering more on a house, pushes up the value of all surrounding houses. Which in turn means that local buyers have to pay more for them. It is actually similar to the share market. You only need a few more buyers than sellers for a share to increase in value. Doesn't matter if the company in question has a high total number of shares issued. If only a few people at any time are only selling a few shares, it doesn't take much extra demand for the price to go up.

Trademe says there are currently 10,931 residential properties for sale in Auckland. Some of those will be houses for removal and carparks. Now the above figure of 41,538 people being granted residency in 2014/15. Now imagine just 1 in 10 of those people buying a house. Then add in returning Kiwis and some Aussies immigrating to NZ. And of course alot of those people selling will be intending to buy another house. Immigration as a % of house sales is actually a large number.

And remember the supply side of housing is very inelastic. As Auckland prices have approx doubled since 2007. We definitely don't have double the rate of building occurring. Restrictive council rules mean that it is hard to build lots of new houses without a big increase in costs. And the official figures they use for new house building are based on consents granted for new houses. But are they nett or gross figures. Imagine a house gets burnt down and then rebuilt. Is that counted a new house in the official figures? What about if a house is demolished and 2 houses built on that section. Does that count as 2 new houses, Or only 1 new house?

Even if all of the new arrivals rent instead of buying. It will still increase rental demand and therefore rents. Higher rents make it harder for kiwis to save up a deposit. And mean that landlords can justify paying more to buy rental properties. The extra traffic congestion from higher immigration makes properties in more central areas worth more.

And the silliest part of all of this - if just 1 person decides to buy an existing house for say $1.5million. Instead of building a new house for the same price. The government misses out on $150,000 of GST + tax on company profits + PAYE tax on all of the workers involved. Now imagine if an extra 40,000 houses were getting built every year. That is a massive amount of tax that the government is missing out on. Hopefully everyone who constantly complains about not enough money for Health, Education, [whatever other area of government spending is important to them], Will realise how much money the councils are effectively "stealing" out of the tax take.

The money that is getting spent on larger mortgages and rents is also not available to the rest of the economy. It is not being spent in shops, or used to pay off debt, or used for savings. This means less commercial investment and less jobs. (never mind the number of new jobs we would have if 40,000 extra houses got built each year).

And finally, GDP per capita. It is mostly stagnant (and often falling). Which means that on average no improvement to the living standards of the average NZer. Despite the current high economic growth. So in reality all of this immigration hasn't increased one of the most important measures of an economy.

Your first argument fails because you make the false connection between 'overseas investors' and the outcome, whereas in fact the outcome is not dependant on the bidder being overseas based - any bidder, even one from Bluff, son of 5th generation Kiwi, doing the same would have the same outcome.

The real problem is arguably that Kiwis are too poor by and large, not that houses are too expensive. If houses were merely too expensive, they would be sitting around empty and unsold. Yet no one offers even a plan to really do much to upskill the economy and shift it from relying on cows, trees and the weather to relying on something that pays better...

Compare to, say, Singapore - a small island nation not that far away which plans everything and has done more or less since it gained independence. It does not lean on the proverbial farm gate, muttering about how it is too far away, too difficult, there are too many Chinamen or whatever the excuse of the day is. Someone at the top of NZ needs to get hold of it by the scruff of it's neck and shake some vigour and vim into it if people want success and the money that comes with it.

Also, money being spent on a mortgage is surely being spent to pay off debt?

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1760711 11-Apr-2017 13:30

Geektastic:

Aredwood:

House prices are subject to marginal pricing. This means that an overseas investor bidding or offering more on a house, pushes up the value of all surrounding houses. Which in turn means that local buyers have to pay more for them. It is actually similar to the share market. You only need a few more buyers than sellers for a share to increase in value. Doesn't matter if the company in question has a high total number of shares issued. If only a few people at any time are only selling a few shares, it doesn't take much extra demand for the price to go up.

Trademe says there are currently 10,931 residential properties for sale in Auckland. Some of those will be houses for removal and carparks. Now the above figure of 41,538 people being granted residency in 2014/15. Now imagine just 1 in 10 of those people buying a house. Then add in returning Kiwis and some Aussies immigrating to NZ. And of course alot of those people selling will be intending to buy another house. Immigration as a % of house sales is actually a large number.

And remember the supply side of housing is very inelastic. As Auckland prices have approx doubled since 2007. We definitely don't have double the rate of building occurring. Restrictive council rules mean that it is hard to build lots of new houses without a big increase in costs. And the official figures they use for new house building are based on consents granted for new houses. But are they nett or gross figures. Imagine a house gets burnt down and then rebuilt. Is that counted a new house in the official figures? What about if a house is demolished and 2 houses built on that section. Does that count as 2 new houses, Or only 1 new house?

Even if all of the new arrivals rent instead of buying. It will still increase rental demand and therefore rents. Higher rents make it harder for kiwis to save up a deposit. And mean that landlords can justify paying more to buy rental properties. The extra traffic congestion from higher immigration makes properties in more central areas worth more.

And the silliest part of all of this - if just 1 person decides to buy an existing house for say $1.5million. Instead of building a new house for the same price. The government misses out on $150,000 of GST + tax on company profits + PAYE tax on all of the workers involved. Now imagine if an extra 40,000 houses were getting built every year. That is a massive amount of tax that the government is missing out on. Hopefully everyone who constantly complains about not enough money for Health, Education, [whatever other area of government spending is important to them], Will realise how much money the councils are effectively "stealing" out of the tax take.

The money that is getting spent on larger mortgages and rents is also not available to the rest of the economy. It is not being spent in shops, or used to pay off debt, or used for savings. This means less commercial investment and less jobs. (never mind the number of new jobs we would have if 40,000 extra houses got built each year).

And finally, GDP per capita. It is mostly stagnant (and often falling). Which means that on average no improvement to the living standards of the average NZer. Despite the current high economic growth. So in reality all of this immigration hasn't increased one of the most important measures of an economy.

Your first argument fails because you make the false connection between 'overseas investors' and the outcome, whereas in fact the outcome is not dependant on the bidder being overseas based - any bidder, even one from Bluff, son of 5th generation Kiwi, doing the same would have the same outcome.

The real problem is arguably that Kiwis are too poor by and large, not that houses are too expensive. If houses were merely too expensive, they would be sitting around empty and unsold. Yet no one offers even a plan to really do much to upskill the economy and shift it from relying on cows, trees and the weather to relying on something that pays better...

Compare to, say, Singapore - a small island nation not that far away which plans everything and has done more or less since it gained independence. It does not lean on the proverbial farm gate, muttering about how it is too far away, too difficult, there are too many Chinamen or whatever the excuse of the day is. Someone at the top of NZ needs to get hold of it by the scruff of it's neck and shake some vigour and vim into it if people want success and the money that comes with it.

Also, money being spent on a mortgage is surely being spent to pay off debt?

Actually the whole housing crisis has been caused a by number of problems, not just one. I believe overseas speculators are 'one' of the reasons for the dramatic rise. Infact the labour party has said just this today. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91445977/little-calls-for-more-affordable-homes-but-says-fall-in-existing-prices-not-the-answer This is because you are getting people who have huge earnings from overseas, buying in NZ and snapping up what are relatively cheap properties, compared to what they earn. The only way for a NZer to buy the house, is to pay more than they are willing pay. Notice that the Labour party don't want to crash the market. They know perfectly well that if that happens, there could be huge problems for the NZ economy. Their policies though don't fix the problem, as they are only targeting certain areas. The high cost of materials, and why it costs so much to build these simple shacks, is another monster that noone wants to tackle. There are a lot of people making a lot of money from all this.

What annoys me, is everytime the topic of 'overseas' buyers comes up, the media turns it into a race issue. They obviously want the housing market to continue like it is, as a lot of their ad revenue is real estate related. They are also really pushing real estate at the moment with a lot of articles on first home buyers still being able to afford to buy, if they do things like stop buying coffee for a year, and inherit money from a dead relative. It is just getting silly.

>>>Also, money being spent on a mortgage is surely being spent to pay off debt?

People are using their mortgage as a bank account to borrow money to buy other things. eg. You buy a house, it goes 'up in value' due to the lack of supply, and people willing to pay over the top, and therefor you have more equity in your house allowing you to borrow more.

Apparently it is lack of land that is one of the driving factors. Because even though the cost to build has risen, the price to buy land, has risen at the highest rate. Much of the reason why Auckland house prices have risen so much, is because that land the shack is on, could be used to build multiple houses. So it has a lot of value in it.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1760713 11-Apr-2017 13:46

The main issue is I see it, ok better prepare for fireworks here, apologies if anyone is offended.

There are cultures where crazy hard work, perpetual sacrifices, to achieve whatever goal has been set, are competing with cultures where there is a sense of entitlement, everybody should get everything handed on a plate, praise everyone for being average, and suddenly the world is buying up all their inheritance.

It's happened in Australia, despite many measures and checks and balances.

This happened in NZ during Helen Clark, she did nothing. Kept happening during John Key, he did nothing. I know in the cook islands foreigners are not allowed to own land. You could implement this, but as long as there are two different cultures with different mentality, nothing is going to change.

Ps it's not that simple, even if there is a single culture where everyone is driven, then there will also be the same problem. But that's an issue for another setting. Right now this is my interpretation.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1760716 11-Apr-2017 13:56

joker97: The main issue is I see it, ok better prepare for fireworks here, apologies if anyone is offended.

There are cultures where crazy hard work, perpetual sacrifices, to achieve whatever goal has been set, are competing with cultures where there is a sense of entitlement, everybody should get everything handed on a plate, praise everyone for being average, and suddenly the world is buying up all their inheritance.

It's happened in Australia, despite many measures and checks and balances.

This happened in NZ during Helen Clark, she did nothing. Kept happening during John Key, he did nothing. I know in the cook islands foreigners are not allowed to own land. You could implement this, but as long as there are two different cultures with different mentality, nothing is going to change.

Ps it's not that simple, even if there is a single culture where everyone is driven, then there will also be the same problem. But that's an issue for another setting. Right now this is my interpretation.

In China you also can't buy property as a foreigner. Even in Australia, foreigners can't just buy a house in many areas, you have to build. So I am amazed that even though this problem has been going on for over a decade, nothing has been done to fix it. But I guess it makes many people feel richer.

I don't think the conversation has ever occurred, as to whether NZ wants to become this hugely populated country, with clusters of different cultures? NZs population has increased significantly over the last 20 years, and we haven't built eniugh houses to cope with this growth. Nor have we built the infrastructure. Many countries, such as Japan for example when I was living there, felt very single cultured.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1761719 11-Apr-2017 15:02

mattwnz: I don't think the conversation has ever occurred, as to whether NZ wants to become this hugely populated country, with clusters of different cultures?

Winston Peters has brought that up every single election for the last 20 years. It's not an issue for most people.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1761732 11-Apr-2017 15:38

gzt:
mattwnz: I don't think the conversation has ever occurred, as to whether NZ wants to become this hugely populated country, with clusters of different cultures?

Winston Peters has brought that up every single election for the last 20 years. It's not an issue for most people.

The fact that he is getting in shows that significant proportion must see it as an issue, otherwise he wouldn't get in. But I was referring more to the size of the population, and bringing in people to quickly inflate the population, without having enough houses to house them in, rather than the the ethnic makeup of the country. To have a 5 million population, when we still have the same number of roads is creating major problems. For example Wellingtons traffic jams are now some of the worst in the world. Also our standard of living isn't getting better as a result, as we now have a big divide between the classes of generation own, and generation rent.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5