Homeless in NZ

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Homeless in NZ

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

18751 posts

Uber Geek

#1828577 24-Jul-2017 17:43

MikeSkyrme:

mattwnz: I wonder how much spin the government are feeding us on this. They claim there are 10000 new jobs being created every month which is around 120000 a year. So this is why they have increased immigration. But that would also mean we need at least 60000 new houses every year just to cope with this growth. But nowhere near that number are being built. It appears we are importing workers to build houses for those imported workers. Doesn't sound very sustainable long term. I suspect the governmebts job numbers aren't that accurate as many may be just temporary.

Spin from the government.... surely not...?

After trawling through the Seek website, I can only assume they are maybe basing this number off the total number of job adds, even though there are multiple adds on Seek which are clearly referencing the same positions. The 10,000 jobs needing to be filled reference was purely and simply a reason for the govt to backtrack on their immigration 'solution' previously announced (another of the many knee-jerk announcements that have come from all political parties within the last month or so).

As already mentioned in previous posts, there is no quick fix to the homelessness issue, but it will not be resolved by being ignored by the government either - and make no mistake, the only body who are able to kick-off even the basic high level discussions that do need to be had are the government.

Also, I agree with your comment re. the imported workers being required to build the infrastructure that they are also placing additional demand on.

The PM has spouted the 10,000 new jobs a month line several times today. Once on newshub, the other here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJCNlvMZ5GM So obviously he is being told to use that line to justify the increased immigration.

But many of the housing figures they are quoting, such as 30,000 new houses from this fund, and 60,000 from another etc. Many will over a 10 year period. But they actually need those now to cope with the increase of new migrants.

Life360

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Life360 protects each family member with advanced driving, digital, and location safety features. Choose the plan that fits your family’s size and life stage.

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1828595 24-Jul-2017 17:56

tdgeek:

UHD:

I said if you were poor and homeless, you will be living an unhappy life

You said:

tdgeek:

Homeless is not JUST the park bench brigade, and all sympathies to them. Its the many others who are homeless, and displaced but have a legitimate roof over their heads. Living a poor, unhappy life with no outcome.

So how does one have a roof over their head and also qualify as homeless? I can grant you poor, unhappy, displaced but not homeless. If you have a home can you also not have a home?

Geektastic

16800 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1828598 24-Jul-2017 18:02

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

The changes required are systemic.

The single biggest issue is that NZ is a low wage economy, dependant largely on primary industry. Primary industry is great - we all have to eat - but it is also very easy to replicate provided you have land and water, which many places do. Tourism is great but NZ can't exist by being a giant theme park for the rest of the world.

We need something akin to an industrial revolution, shifting NZ into a service based economy which attracts inward investment from the modern money generators. That requires a strategic approach: a Singapore-like plan that is laid out and which will, over 25 years or something, take NZ where it needs to get to.

At the moment I see no political party with that approach: it's ALL short term, firefighting reactive policy making, to be honest.

Can you clarify this.

Which bit?

tdgeek

26475 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1828601 24-Jul-2017 18:05

UHD:

tdgeek:

UHD:

I said if you were poor and homeless, you will be living an unhappy life

You said:

tdgeek:

Homeless is not JUST the park bench brigade, and all sympathies to them. Its the many others who are homeless, and displaced but have a legitimate roof over their heads. Living a poor, unhappy life with no outcome.

So how does one have a roof over their head and also qualify as homeless? I can grant you poor, unhappy, displaced but not homeless. If you have a home can you also not have a home?

Fair enough, I wasn't clear. I was meaning the overcrowding that is seen, multiple families crammed into houses, leaving all but the proper occupants as homeless.

tdgeek

26475 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1828603 24-Jul-2017 18:06

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

Geektastic:

The changes required are systemic.

The single biggest issue is that NZ is a low wage economy, dependant largely on primary industry. Primary industry is great - we all have to eat - but it is also very easy to replicate provided you have land and water, which many places do. Tourism is great but NZ can't exist by being a giant theme park for the rest of the world.

We need something akin to an industrial revolution, shifting NZ into a service based economy which attracts inward investment from the modern money generators. That requires a strategic approach: a Singapore-like plan that is laid out and which will, over 25 years or something, take NZ where it needs to get to.

At the moment I see no political party with that approach: it's ALL short term, firefighting reactive policy making, to be honest.

Can you clarify this.

Which bit?

The bolded bit. It does read like a politician, words but no substance, I was just after a bit more detail

Geektastic

16800 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1828612 24-Jul-2017 18:27

OK. I'll have a go.

The areas of business that make the most money are things related to IT and to emerging technology. We have some of this in NZ ( there is a bit of a computer game company nexus in Dunedin, I seem to recall) but we do not seem to direct as much resource at these areas as we do at agriculture.

Universities often produce research and university towns often generate hi-tech businesses around them. An example I am personally familiar with is Cambridge in the UK. It has (of course) a very well known university. All around the outside of the city are business parks, occupied by specialist tech and medical research and development companies, making the most of the university research in some case and of the wide availability of very bright people in most cases.

I personally think NZ has a choice. It can kind of bumble on, nothing much changes, we milk cows, make cheese, do a bit of this and that and everyone thinks it's great coz they can hang out in jandals and drink beersies all weekend.

Or, we can collectively say that we are no longer prepared to accept the status quo ante, to be at the mercy of distance which is no longer really a factor, to no longer accept that 'we're small and that means we just have to accept that things are the way they are.' Singapore is small. Hong Kong is small. The Channel Islands are small. We can collectively move past that, towards a future in which companies that produce world leading tech etc etc generate plenty of money, there are lots of jobs, lots of international interest in being based in NZ.

It's hard to write this without sounding like a politician and I certainly make no claims as to how it can be done. I do however say it should be looked at - very seriously. It will mean change, some of which might be uncomfortable and/or unpopular in the short term, but NZ is as capable of creating the next Amazon, Tesla, Space-X, super fast chip design, medical breakthrough or whatever as anywhere else.

If we want to end homelessness and poverty etc then the answer is to crank this place up several gears, lift everyone's standard of living.

The problem is we have no vision and no plan. We do not really know where we are trying to go, so we cannot ever know how we will get there or even if we have arrived. As the old military adage goes, fail to prepare - prepare to fail.

All I see from all NZ parties is "We'll build some more houses", "We'll keep the foreigners out!", "We'll increase spending on XYZ", "We'll give kiddies free lunch" or whatever.

Those are useful things but they are in reality small, reactive responses to being knocked about like a bobbing cork on the waves of life, not a long term plan to get to a defined destination.

Here's an article about what Singapore did. We can't copy them exactly for various reasons, but we really should be paying attention to what we CAN take from that and what we can add of our own. Otherwise we'll all be here in our old folks homes typing the very same arguments and discussions 25 years from now.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1828621 24-Jul-2017 18:50

Geektastic:

OK. I'll have a go.

The areas of business that make the most money are things related to IT and to emerging technology. We have some of this in NZ ( there is a bit of a computer game company nexus in Dunedin, I seem to recall) but we do not seem to direct as much resource at these areas as we do at agriculture.

Universities often produce research and university towns often generate hi-tech businesses around them. An example I am personally familiar with is Cambridge in the UK. It has (of course) a very well known university. All around the outside of the city are business parks, occupied by specialist tech and medical research and development companies, making the most of the university research in some case and of the wide availability of very bright people in most cases.

I personally think NZ has a choice. It can kind of bumble on, nothing much changes, we milk cows, make cheese, do a bit of this and that and everyone thinks it's great coz they can hang out in jandals and drink beersies all weekend.

Or, we can collectively say that we are no longer prepared to accept the status quo ante, to be at the mercy of distance which is no longer really a factor, to no longer accept that 'we're small and that means we just have to accept that things are the way they are.' Singapore is small. Hong Kong is small. The Channel Islands are small. We can collectively move past that, towards a future in which companies that produce world leading tech etc etc generate plenty of money, there are lots of jobs, lots of international interest in being based in NZ.

It's hard to write this without sounding like a politician and I certainly make no claims as to how it can be done. I do however say it should be looked at - very seriously. It will mean change, some of which might be uncomfortable and/or unpopular in the short term, but NZ is as capable of creating the next Amazon, Tesla, Space-X, super fast chip design, medical breakthrough or whatever as anywhere else.

If we want to end homelessness and poverty etc then the answer is to crank this place up several gears, lift everyone's standard of living.

The problem is we have no vision and no plan. We do not really know where we are trying to go, so we cannot ever know how we will get there or even if we have arrived. As the old military adage goes, fail to prepare - prepare to fail.

All I see from all NZ parties is "We'll build some more houses", "We'll keep the foreigners out!", "We'll increase spending on XYZ", "We'll give kiddies free lunch" or whatever.

Those are useful things but they are in reality small, reactive responses to being knocked about like a bobbing cork on the waves of life, not a long term plan to get to a defined destination.

Here's an article about what Singapore did. We can't copy them exactly for various reasons, but we really should be paying attention to what we CAN take from that and what we can add of our own. Otherwise we'll all be here in our old folks homes typing the very same arguments and discussions 25 years from now.

Yes - good post.

But while we have a housing shortage (in Auckland mainly) - there are far better returns possible there - than risking it by doing something productive.

tdgeek

26475 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1828664 24-Jul-2017 20:37

Geektastic:

OK. I'll have a go.

The areas of business that make the most money are things related to IT and to emerging technology. We have some of this in NZ ( there is a bit of a computer game company nexus in Dunedin, I seem to recall) but we do not seem to direct as much resource at these areas as we do at agriculture.

Universities often produce research and university towns often generate hi-tech businesses around them. An example I am personally familiar with is Cambridge in the UK. It has (of course) a very well known university. All around the outside of the city are business parks, occupied by specialist tech and medical research and development companies, making the most of the university research in some case and of the wide availability of very bright people in most cases.

I personally think NZ has a choice. It can kind of bumble on, nothing much changes, we milk cows, make cheese, do a bit of this and that and everyone thinks it's great coz they can hang out in jandals and drink beersies all weekend.

Or, we can collectively say that we are no longer prepared to accept the status quo ante, to be at the mercy of distance which is no longer really a factor, to no longer accept that 'we're small and that means we just have to accept that things are the way they are.' Singapore is small. Hong Kong is small. The Channel Islands are small. We can collectively move past that, towards a future in which companies that produce world leading tech etc etc generate plenty of money, there are lots of jobs, lots of international interest in being based in NZ.

It's hard to write this without sounding like a politician and I certainly make no claims as to how it can be done. I do however say it should be looked at - very seriously. It will mean change, some of which might be uncomfortable and/or unpopular in the short term, but NZ is as capable of creating the next Amazon, Tesla, Space-X, super fast chip design, medical breakthrough or whatever as anywhere else.

If we want to end homelessness and poverty etc then the answer is to crank this place up several gears, lift everyone's standard of living.

The problem is we have no vision and no plan. We do not really know where we are trying to go, so we cannot ever know how we will get there or even if we have arrived. As the old military adage goes, fail to prepare - prepare to fail.

All I see from all NZ parties is "We'll build some more houses", "We'll keep the foreigners out!", "We'll increase spending on XYZ", "We'll give kiddies free lunch" or whatever.

Those are useful things but they are in reality small, reactive responses to being knocked about like a bobbing cork on the waves of life, not a long term plan to get to a defined destination.

Here's an article about what Singapore did. We can't copy them exactly for various reasons, but we really should be paying attention to what we CAN take from that and what we can add of our own. Otherwise we'll all be here in our old folks homes typing the very same arguments and discussions 25 years from now.

Thanks for the effort with the post.

Great points. But. Does the Govt have to make this happen? They have no clue, the Tech companies do, they do this, and no doubt are trying to compete globally. I dont see what role the Govt has, apart from funding. Should the Govt support your ideas I foresee its only funding, and at the same time they do what Govts do, as you listed. No need to give up the cows etc, I dont really follow why its we should do tech and not cows? Can do both, both are unrelated. They are not mutually exclusive.

I guess we could have a Minister of Technology, whose sole role is to help grow the industry, and assess all requests. Id want Govt OUT of this idea, but to be a key funding source. No Govt meddling.

Geektastic

16800 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1828695 24-Jul-2017 20:59

No the government can only facilitate. They can create helpful tax and regulation environments, use diplomatic channels to grease wheels and encourage inward investment.

But they can't actually do it. The collective we have to do it.

networkn

27626 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1828696 24-Jul-2017 21:01

mattwnz:

MikeSkyrme:

mattwnz: I wonder how much spin the government are feeding us on this. They claim there are 10000 new jobs being created every month which is around 120000 a year. So this is why they have increased immigration. But that would also mean we need at least 60000 new houses every year just to cope with this growth. But nowhere near that number are being built. It appears we are importing workers to build houses for those imported workers. Doesn't sound very sustainable long term. I suspect the governmebts job numbers aren't that accurate as many may be just temporary.

Spin from the government.... surely not...?

After trawling through the Seek website, I can only assume they are maybe basing this number off the total number of job adds, even though there are multiple adds on Seek which are clearly referencing the same positions. The 10,000 jobs needing to be filled reference was purely and simply a reason for the govt to backtrack on their immigration 'solution' previously announced (another of the many knee-jerk announcements that have come from all political parties within the last month or so).

As already mentioned in previous posts, there is no quick fix to the homelessness issue, but it will not be resolved by being ignored by the government either - and make no mistake, the only body who are able to kick-off even the basic high level discussions that do need to be had are the government.

Also, I agree with your comment re. the imported workers being required to build the infrastructure that they are also placing additional demand on.

The PM has spouted the 10,000 new jobs a month line several times today. Once on newshub, the other here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJCNlvMZ5GM So obviously he is being told to use that line to justify the increased immigration.

But many of the housing figures they are quoting, such as 30,000 new houses from this fund, and 60,000 from another etc. Many will over a 10 year period. But they actually need those now to cope with the increase of new migrants.

Right, well just as well you said something, because without it, they would have taken 10 years to build. Now instead we will pull out a magic wand and make them appear instantly. :)

MikeB4

17148 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1828697 24-Jul-2017 21:02

Geektastic: No the government can only facilitate. They can create helpful tax and regulation environments, use diplomatic channels to grease wheels and encourage inward investment.

But they can't actually do it. The collective we have to do it.

agreed the Government facilitates, the community and commercial interests do the rest.

networkn

27626 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1828699 24-Jul-2017 21:07

Geektastic:

OK. I'll have a go.

-- shortened --

Here's an article about what Singapore did. We can't copy them exactly for various reasons, but we really should be paying attention to what we CAN take from that and what we can add of our own. Otherwise we'll all be here in our old folks homes typing the very same arguments and discussions 25 years from now.

Right, sounds fantastic. The BIG difference between your examples and NZ

1) We are MUCH more spread out. We have 5m people across a much larger area. In Singapore you can get internet in the underground subway, here you are lucky if you can catch public transport.

2) Those countries are not socialist democracies. In those countries, the people at the top make plans, and everyone gets on with it. Here we have protesters marching over the bridge every time a twig gets snapped during construction, or people are made to work more than 39.999 hours a week. No-one is held responsible for a 400M road being blown out to $4B. In Singapore that kind of mistake would result in the execution of someone :)

MikeB4

17148 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1828701 24-Jul-2017 21:12

We have seen an enquiry into the price of petrol I feel there should be an enquiry into the cost of just about everything to do with building, modifying or maintaining housing in NZ.

blakamin

4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1828702 24-Jul-2017 21:14

networkn:

Geektastic:

OK. I'll have a go.

-- shortened --

Here's an article about what Singapore did. We can't copy them exactly for various reasons, but we really should be paying attention to what we CAN take from that and what we can add of our own. Otherwise we'll all be here in our old folks homes typing the very same arguments and discussions 25 years from now.

Right, sounds fantastic. The BIG difference between your examples and NZ

1) We are MUCH more spread out. We have 5m people across a much larger area. In Singapore you can get internet in the underground subway, here you are lucky if you can catch public transport.

2) Those countries are not socialist democracies. In those countries, the people at the top make plans, and everyone gets on with it. Here we have protesters marching over the bridge every time a twig gets snapped during construction, or people are made to work more than 39.999 hours a week. No-one is held responsible for a 400M road being blown out to $4B. In Singapore that kind of mistake would result in the execution of someone :)

I don't think it's so much the executing of people (:D I saw your smiley), but maybe the way most Asian cultures look after family and community and "westerners" tend to be a lot more "What can I get out of it, and how much $$$ can I make?".

It's all the people in power seem to care about anyway.

Geektastic

16800 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1828703 24-Jul-2017 21:16

networkn:
Geektastic:

OK. I'll have a go.

-- shortened --

Here's an article about what Singapore did. We can't copy them exactly for various reasons, but we really should be paying attention to what we CAN take from that and what we can add of our own. Otherwise we'll all be here in our old folks homes typing the very same arguments and discussions 25 years from now.

Right, sounds fantastic. The BIG difference between your examples and NZ

1) We are MUCH more spread out. We have 5m people across a much larger area. In Singapore you can get internet in the underground subway, here you are lucky if you can catch public transport.

2) Those countries are not socialist democracies. In those countries, the people at the top make plans, and everyone gets on with it. Here we have protesters marching over the bridge every time a twig gets snapped during construction, or people are made to work more than 39.999 hours a week. No-one is held responsible for a 400M road being blown out to $4B. In Singapore that kind of mistake would result in the execution of someone :)

As I said, not easy and perhaps we need to get a bit more top down to do better.

All I know is that doing the same thing forever won't change anything and neither will sticking political Band Aids on.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15