Maybe Jacinda became Labour Leader two weeks too early. Is the honeymoon with the electorate now over and the veil has been lifted to reveal the same Labour Party that the electorate already knew previously? Has Jazz-cinda become Just-cinda?
Printable View
Maybe Jacinda became Labour Leader two weeks too early. Is the honeymoon with the electorate now over and the veil has been lifted to reveal the same Labour Party that the electorate already knew previously? Has Jazz-cinda become Just-cinda?
I quoted from this a week or so ago - you can't trust polls
https://www.johnkay.com/2017/06/07/f...opinion-polls/
Quota sampling is not the same as random sampling from a population. Rather, it uses a model to estimate from the answers which are received what the answers would have been if the people giving answers had been a random selection from the population. Modern pollsters know that their sample is not in any sense random, and now use sophisticated and complex models to adjust for their failure to achieve randomness. But this confronts the pollsters, and those who want to use their results, with the problem that Mr Viniar had failed to recognise: the probability derived from the model has to be compounded with the probability that the model is itself true. And we have no means of deriving the latter probability, or indeed of attaching meaning to such a probability.We can usefully say things like “the pollsters are very experienced”, or “the model has worked well in the past”. But these are statements about confidence and judgement, not about probabilities.
For Labour, it looks like a temporary blip deflating. Jacinda will be in a world of hurt, such a rapid rise in popularity but stealing the water <=> support from ANY farmer. Taxing everything to pay for everything promised, without any detail, except the 'ruling outs' (ergo they have tax policy but aren't telling) <=> support from anyone with any assets. The rest of her pitch is wafer thin, deftly put down by National. But I'd still like to see National put up a counter to free tertiary education.
Close, we're putting up party vote stickers for early voting. Went to a "meet the candidates" meeting tonight, last one they're having. The local Nat MP was there, renewing my efforts to see him gone.
I'm not sure where Newshub got these latest voting intentions from, maybe they didn't ring any townies, just farmers on landlines.
Awaiting the next colmar brunton poll. The fall guy joyce is not going to fool enough kiwis with his dirty mudslinging; got to have faith in whats good ,decent and honest shining through.
NewsHub is from TV3, owned by Mediaworks, and Mediaworks was formed out of a combination of Radioworks and TV3 in 2004. That's where Joyce got his cash from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWorks_New_Zealand
He probably helped them out in 2011 with a funding guarantee.
So these Mediaworks people might not be playing it straight. Note that all the votes in this poll add to 100%, they polled some people and discarded all the 'don't knows', to get their figures. That's not realistic, and they should have told us how many were discarded.
Note the timing of this crap poll, it's at the start of early voting and just after Joyce made up some rubbish about Labour's budget figures. This is the sort of thing that Labour is up against, pretty much a corruption of power.
Yep PT and all take note;ive been consistent about this. Prob timed to try and influence all the early voters ; early voting up 300% on last year. Desperate underhand measures .Treating kiwis with complete disrespect as gormless easy pushovers,
NOT!
Correction: PaperTiger... it should be they're politicians.
JoshuaTree: Jacinda has honed the positivity of her messaging around change and making an impact - it is too late to be changing that messaging or unmuzzling Kelvin Davis for an attack (and if Trevor Mallard apparently has his sights set on the role of speaker of the house in the next term then he isn't going to do it) - that might backfire so it is pretty much course laid in over the next 2 weeks.
There is enough smoke and noise around the tax working group that has seen that firming of support pause for the moment. Voters usually think they are over taxed and others don't pay enough tax but generally don't vote in additional taxes upon themselves -
some may wish to but think others should pay more would be my observation - any uncertainty about their own bank balance makes voters uneasy.
Having said that, the only poll that counts is the one on election night and I wouldn't be predicting an outcome other than:
TOP isn't likely to get 5% neither will the Conservatives or ACT but David Seymour will probably get Epsom and that will be it.
The Greens should be deeply worried - if they don't get 5% then there are going to be no MPs and no voice in Parliament. The largely post MT campaign has seen James Shaw disappear off hoardings and from what I can see a environmental policy campaign. If they don't get in there will be a lot of soul searching about this campaign - there is some genuine talent in their party list ranks that Labour should be looking to headhunt for 2020.
Potentially we could see the largest wasted vote ever under MMP... you are all smart folk but there are some consequences to those wasted party votes...
Because if the country isn't quite ready for a change now then I really can't see a five term administration unless the opposition collapses between now and then - I genuinely hope for the sake of good government that isn't the case.
Polls are polls and all need ot be taken with a grain of salt, flaws and all. So I'm not to excited about this latest one. I do like the timing though as it will hopefully give those early voters reason to pause and think before the tick the box. On Monday their tick was likely to be picking a Winner which we all like to do. But now Labour might not be the winner so could put off those early voters or slow it down.
I also think Labour has emptied is artillery of big shots so they are as good as it gets. National still has to harness the rural vote which should ripple into the cities. We all know that our economy does rely on those greedy farmers who you only see in town when they are buying their latest car.
I'm a bit surprised by the blank green hoardings. This is obviously a personality election and the Greens should have a figurehead. Shaw doesn't seem like a bad bloke deluded as he is - but someone the Greens could relate to . The risk is their punters could go to the Green side of Labour or the socialist side of TOP. There will of course be the hard core Greens - but enough to get to 5% will be interesting
Still very close in reality. Colmar Brunton is the most accurate unbiased poll and thats to come
RNZ Poll of Polls mini-update
RNZ's updated polling averages - taking into account tonight's Newshub-Reid Research poll and the Bauer Media Insights IQ poll - has the two major parties neck and neck.
National is ahead on 41.3 percent while Labour is on 40.5 percent.
New Zealand First is on 7.5 percent, the Greens are on 5.5 percent, the Māori Party is on 1.4 percent, the Opportunities Party is on 1.9 percent and ACT is on 0.6 percent.
On these numbers, National would win 51 seats, Labour would get 50, New Zealand First 9, the Greens 7, the Māori Party 2, and one for ACT.
The last full Poll of Polls - from Friday - has Labour on 41.8 percent, fractionally ahead of National's 41.1 percent
That's true, TV3 gets Reid Research to do their polling, and TV1 use Colmar Brunton. Both discard the 'don't knows', and the "not saying" results.
But if you look at both firms, they have different methodologies.
Colmar Brunton also use over 1,000 voters who can be called via landlines, the same as Reid Research. Reid Research say that they ensure a representative cross-section by age, sex and geography. Sounds good, doesn't it?
But Colmar Brunton go a step further. They allow for those weightings, but also weight for ethnicity. That's probably quite important. They also weight on household size. In the latest Colmar Brunton poll, the undecided and no answer rate was 10%, they at least released the data.
They also say that because they discard the refusals and undecided to come up with the 100% total, that these polls can only be relied on to reflect voting trends, they cannot be used to predict election results.
But of course that's exactly what the TV channels do with the data. So we're hearing this morning from TV1 reporting on TV3's poll "So what are Labour doing wrong?" and other daft comments. The difference is that polling has started, this shouldn't be a lightweight game being played by the news media now. Why aren't they spending detailed time on policy differences? - but that would be a lot of work.
http://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/wp-co...rt-2-6-Sep.pdf
Don't forget that the other weakness in both polling methods is that they only call landlines to make their contacts. Many households that are struggling, have long ago given up their landline and gone to cellular, rather than pay for two systems. All of these people are then off the grid of the pollsters.
In any case, I think I'd trust the Colmar Brunton Poll to get closer to the actual voting trend, and before the TV channels get too much time to sway voters with their latest take, a new TV1 poll will be out in a day or so.
Take a deep breath EL Z. Those comments are bordering on slanderous. Not only are you saying they are corrupt, you are saying they manipulated the timing of the poll. And if the next poll released by whoever is favourable to Labour all will be sunshine and light again.
I thought the gnashing of teeth from the left was extraordinary after the last election. Looks like they're starting early this time.
EZ don't forget this about polls - the probability derived from the model has to be compounded with the probability that the model is itself true. And we have no means of deriving the latter probability, or indeed of attaching meaning to such a probability.
Polls just a guide as to what's happening ...and those interested only read into the results what they want to see anyway.
And it fills up the papers / screens and good entertainment eh.
if the end result is really really close i hope Sainte-Lague doesn't stuff it up
Jacinda says things that sound good .....any substance behind her talk?
She seems a bit confused though as the sound good things seem to be in conflict
Neoliberalism is dead ....overseas companies doing offshore oil drilling and seabed mining OK .....while cleaning up the rivers
More and more people are asking how? We all know about the Education system, the Rivers, the Roads and Rail, Housing, Immigration and all the rest but the current government is attempting to work on some or most of these things with little success because we simply do not have the financial resources to make much progress. No amount of taxation will help - taxation simply takes money from one place and moves it to another. And when you take it from the person who earned it and give it to someone who didn't earn it, then you are in real trouble. Ahern is currently standing in front of the orchestra with a baton in her hand telling the audience about the wonderful music they are about to play. But she has yet to turn around and demonstrate her ability to conduct and even if she is good, a couple of dogs in the orchestra can ruin the whole performance.
That is spin. The odds yesterday were Labour 1.68 and National 2.10 or thereabouts, I should know, I am a Centrebet customer and frequent the site often enough. Labour have moved out in the market and National have shortened.
But the real market is Betfair where Labour were odds on two days ago at 1.50, now they are closer to 2.00
Unfortunately a lot of the tax goes to schools and health care - both of which I am keen on.
A fair bit goes to propping up the income of those who don't get paid enough - Working for Families. A form of corporate welfare.
The idea that it is no hopers and bludgers that get all the money is very old. Sure some goes that way and, to an extent, it may save them from having to burgle your house (though it may give them more free time to do so for a 'topup').
Tax is always unfair to someone. As someone in the group who pay 24% of the taxes I feel that.
The best way to to grow the pot (not grow pot) but we haven't done a lot of that in the past 9 years. Most growth has been just adding people (immigration) and look where that has gotten Auckland. We need productivity increases and the current Govt doesn't seem to have a plan. They seem to be working on it now that they have a fight but it isn't in the nature of National to come up with new ideas - steady as she goes Bill.
I agree with most of what you say. I wish National had done better. I was not a fan of John Key who I consider a moral jellyfish. Bill however has a strong social conscience and I think he is genuine in working for a "social dividend" as he terms it.
The trouble is...despite my frustrations with National...Labour sure as hell aren't an alternative.
Correct they are not an alternative; they are the solution.:t_up:
Housing crisis documentary pulls no punches on eve of election
This insightful documentary explains it all re lack of productivity etc dobby etc.amazing to think that from the 30's to the 60's anyone could get a 5% deposit together and a 3% mortgage from the state for 40 years!
From 1960 to now wages went up 59%
Houseprices went up 280%!
In 1979 a schoolteacher earning $13,000 a year could easily buy the average house costing $26,000.!
Now it would take the ENTIRE teachers salary for 11 years to buy an auckland house.
In 1979 a teacher earning $17,360 .A backbencher MP earning $18,000. Now the teacher gets$78,000, the MP $160,000!
Now people are earning less then their parents and houses are way more expensive.
The postoffice was where we diligently saved money.With banking deregulation and foreign banks coming in with an endless supply of money,its now where we spend our money.
"From 1960 to now wages went up 59%"
Fake news or at least a typo.
3rd to bottom line 777
""My dad was a postman and my mum was a factory worker, and yet they were able to build a brand-new house in Christchurch with next-to-no money. All a family like mine had to do back then was to get a five per cent deposit together and then the Government lent them the rest of the money (a State Advances Loan) at three per cent for 40 years."
sign up for the homed newsletter
Back then, housing was seen as essential infrastructure, with home ownership being "the key to a healthy society and a stable democracy".
So what happened? Watch this documentary and you have to think we should have seen this coming. All the signs were there, starting way back in the 1980s and '90s, when we switched from a regulated economy to a market-driven one.
Today, we have a low-wage economy. Since the 1960s wages have increased 59 per cent, but housing has gone up a massive 280 per cent. As Bruce says: "Our market-driven economic system has created huge income inequalities that didn't exist 30 years ago."
That deposit was often got by capitalising your Family Benefit (the few bucks Mum got each week for looking after the kids)
Question then JT - are advocating Jacinda build 30,000 or whatever new homes (at a affordable cost) and then finance families into them with a low deposit and low interest rate loans.
Jacinda literally won't build the homes ...she'll only see that they get built.
Last i looked National have absolutely no plans or details about their big build of 30,000 let alone affordable ones.
Must be inflation adjusted ...if so hope they inflation adjusted both eh
From stuff I have - ......1994 estimated average house and land package price has increased 248% while the average employee's gross annual income has increased 101%.
So a gap does exist, no question
But no worries - Jacinda is going to build a lot of lower cost houses (and not put a margin on them) to reduce the gap.
Yes prob inflation adjusted 777. Its not pro national or labour imo; just explaining whats happened and looking at solutions. Im very surprised that there is no data to let us know how many foreigners have and are buying.This can have an impact on prices and demand.
EMBRACING ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONSBut there are alternatives to traditional home ownership, and New Zealand needs to embrace these.
Bruce presents a co-operative housing scheme in Germany. The upside? No landlord can evict you. The downside? Your money is locked in there for a minimum 18 months and you can't sell your shares in the building for more than you paid for them.
Affordable long-term leasing is another option. Post-war construction in Berlin saw many such buildings made available to tenants, who can live there for life, decorating their home however they wish. Both the State and private companies have invested in the scheme.
Such a scheme seems like a solution for New Zealand. But it's not about "mum and dad" landlords and damp, poorly insulated rentals – it's about institutional investment from sources, such as KiwiSaver and the NZ Super Fund and ACC.
But first, says Bruce, we need that data. Then we can create the "essential" infrastructure. And it will undoubtedly include high-rise living options for families, which in turn, will demand more innovative thinking from our regulatory bodies – and fast tracking.
Bruce is right. When it comes to the question, who really owns New Zealand now?, we deserve a better answer than "I don't know".
This documentary, screening so close to a general election, will surely ramp up the conversation about the housing crisis. Just watch those promises come trotting out, but at least we now know what they should be saying
A simple fact about wages and house costs. I arrived here early in 1960 and went to work at Fords in Gracefield. My wage as a car assembler was seven shilling and an extra fourpence an hour if you were on time every day. A section in those days averaged 1,000 pounds and a house with State advances cost 3000 pounds.Ten shillings changed to one dollar so seven shillings became 70 cents.so the inflation is in the mid 200's from 1960.Most people saved to buy the section and then went for the State loan. The universal child benefit of fifteen shillings per week could be capitalised for an amount limited to one and a half children. I had the great good fortune to get in on this scheme after I had gone up in the world and only just qualified on my past years salary. A couple of oil shocks saw me going to State Advances to double or triple my repayments but they wouldn't agree.
A common misstatement.
According to the governments own budget figures 13% of your tax dollar went on social security and welfare (I assume plenty of them wanted to work)! 17% went on National Super !!! The two biggest expenses were health at 21% and education at 17%
zacman
[QUOTE=Joshuatree;683852]Yes prob inflation adjusted 777./QUOTE]
Inflation has trended down since 1976 while wages have trended up.
Points of reference are sometimes handy.
I was one of the fortunates who grew up in a brand new 4 bedroom affordable home on a 800sqm section. Mum as i recall got the DPB (but she also worked so not sure how that plays out) and i think it was financed through a state advances loan. One neighbour was a dutch migrant, there was a family of poms, a maori family and one lot that had the police visit from time to time.
Just checked the latest RV and it comes in at $405,000. Seems afforable to me.
THE ISSUE
"The Kiwi Dream of homeownership is slipping away. Only a quarter of adults under 40 own their own home, compared to half in 1991. Too few houses are being built, which is helping to drive up prices beyond the reach of middle New Zealand, and too few of the houses that are built are affordably priced for new home buyers.
In Auckland, despite more than 13,000 new houses being needed to keep up with population growth, just 9,400 new houses were consented in the past year. The trend for new consents is falling when a dramatic increase is needed.
The Government’s estimate that only 5% of new builds are priced in the lowest quartile means fewer than 500 affordable houses will be built in Auckland this year.
LABOUR WILL PARTNER WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO BUILD 100,000 AFFORDABLE HOMES
KiwiBuild will deliver 100,000 affordable houses over ten years for first home buyers. Half of these will be built in Auckland. That is a ten-fold increase in the number of affordable houses being built in Auckland each year, from 500 to 5,000.
The stand-alone KiwiBuild homes in Auckland will be priced at $500,000-$600,000 with apartments and terraced houses under $500,000. Outside of Auckland prices are likely to range from $300,000-$500,000. These will be high-quality homes built to modern standards. Scale and modern offsite manufacturing techniques will enable these homes to be built at low cost.
Currently, 2-3 bedroom houses are being built at Hobsonville and Waimahia and sold for under $550,000. KiwiBuild will enable more homes to be built in this price range.
KiwiBuild homes will only be sold to first home buyers. To avoid buyers reaping windfall gains, a condition of sale will require them to hand back any capital gain if sold on within 5 years.
Construction of the KiwiBuild houses will be financed by an initial $2 billion capital injection, which will be recycled as the houses are sold, and returned to the Crown at the end of the KiwiBuild programme. The Affordable Housing Authority will be the primary delivery mechanism for KiwiBuild homes, building them as part of its development projects"
Where will the builders, plumbers, roofers, scaffolders, plasterers, carpet layers, electricians, excavators, inspectors, drain layers, painters, paper hangers, landscapers come from to support this vision/dream?
Training takes years, importing skills hasn't worked, and won't work because wages in NZ are lower than other countries who are trying to encourage the same trades to work in their country
The taxpayer has no business getting involved with building houses, period. Let alone with no reward for the risk (dodgy builders, substandard materials, ghetto creation etc)
The "dream" of owning your own house is achievable if compromises are made - including moving to a different city. Tony Alexander hit the nail on the head a few months back. Adjust your spending to suit your goals. Although stereotyped, the current generation wants far more than previous generations but hasn't realized that they need to pay for it
The "housing crisis" was not created by the government. It can't be "fixed" by the government. Economics 101, supply & demand. For many years after the GFC, supply was very low. We are seeing the effects in the last few years as competition for a limited resource bids up the price
Removing depreciation from rental accommodation had a retarding effect on new builds - what other business can't claim depreciation? Note that depreciation claims were clawed back on sale, so were only really a "loan", which increased affordability
Maybe a significant tax break for new non-owner-occupied dwelling construction would be a solution that would actually work without exposing the taxpayer to yet another Saudi Sheep deal aka KiwiBuild
But still doesn't solve the skilled labour shortage
I watched most of that housing programme last night. What labour wont do is adress the problem with the couple in the car who had 4 kids.
I have no problem with them having four kids. But why does it now become my problem when they figure out a roof over their heads might be handy.
Presumably the new city would have to have employment opportunities and a social network to replace family and friends left behind.
House prices have outstipped the growth in incomes and consequently the amount for a deposit needed to be raised has become more unaffordable over the years. So the current generation wants the same but it is now more unaffordable to get into! Yet the older generations tell them they should settle for less (a small apartment in a block of flats) that is more unaffordable than the stand alone house that older generations were able to get into!
Disagree. Tax policy, Lack of restrictions on overseas foreign ownership and inability to supply sufficient new residential land for dwellings is the responsibility of government both local and national.Quote:
The "housing crisis" was not created by the government. It can't be "fixed" by the government. Economics 101, supply & demand. For many years after the GFC, supply was very low. We are seeing the effects in the last few years as competition for a limited resource bids up the price
I agree. It may have encouraged more people to landbank rather than develop and improve. (another government failure?)Quote:
Removing depreciation from rental accommodation had a retarding effect on new builds - what other business can't claim depreciation? Note that depreciation claims were clawed back on sale, so were only really a "loan", which increased affordability
If you encourege Landlord building, then that is accepting that a significant number of people will be tenants. In that scenario, tenancy laws need to be overhauled to provide good tenants with greater security of tenure and ability to personalise their tenanted houses.Quote:
Maybe a significant tax break for new non-owner-occupied dwelling construction would be a solution that would actually work without exposing the taxpayer to yet another Saudi Sheep deal aka KiwiBuild
NZ should aim to be a high income, high productivity economy.Quote:
But still doesn't solve the skilled labour shortage
And to focus on farmers being dragged into the ETS, I say this is 100% fair game, and they should pay 100% of their liability back-dated a decade
The situation that exists now is the famers don't pay their emission's costs, the taxpayer does. Yet we taxpayers are constantly told (again this morning), that prices for the goods produced by those same farmers we are subsidizing are rising due to NZ's export driven market. (Stats NZ press release)
Joe public pays twice, Freddy farmer doesn't pay at all. Enough is enough
If NZ taxpayer covers ETS costs for farmers, those same primary products cant be sold to NZ taxpayers at full export value (I would argue well above full export price if French butter at Countdown is cheaper than NZ butter)
Better still, scrap the ETS entirely. It doesn't actually do anything to improve emissions anyway, just another tax. But that's not on the agenda
Labour statistics show better employment prospects outside Auckland. Skype allows me to stay in close contact with people on the otherside of the world
Has been the situation for several generations now. My parents first house was much more lavish than mine. I'm 50
I suggest MMP may be the cause of 1 & 3, but disagree that any changes palatable to Joe Public could have been enacted (eg tax breaks, compulsory acquisition). But foreign ownership has been shown to have almost zero bearing
I am a landlord with 1 rental. Owned since 1993. Had 2 separate tenancies that lasted over 10 years each. I resisted raising the rent so they wouldn't consider move out. They respected my house, I respected their privacy. Good tenants are worth gold, more than an extra $30 per week IMO. I'm sure I'm not alone with these thoughts. But when I did get a bad tenant (mid 90's) it was incredibly frustrating going through the process to get them out.
Have you ever had to pick broken glass beer bottles out of the lawn by hand, so that future tenants don't get cut to bits? I spent half a day doing jus that, getting abandoned (and locked up) car towed away, removing candle wax from carpet, repairing holes in walls. The bond didn't cover it all
Tenancy laws are just fine where they are now
Agree with high income, but we aren't there yet and won't be for years.
Productivity reflects the economic base of a country. NZ is heavily agricultural and services. Productivity gains are almost impossible to achieve (can't produce more output with less labour input as mechanization/automation options just don't exist as they do for manufacturing). Productivity comparisons with other countries are therefore meaningless
Before there is a need for tradies there must be developers. And their bankers. For the life of me I cannot see why developers would commit to building such a huge number of so-called affordable homes, unless they are being heavily subsidised to do so. Why would they wear the risk unless there is decent reward. Think of the developers that went belly up in the GFC. And prices dropping in Christchurch and levelling off elsewhere as supply comes onstream. And immigration also dropping under some party policies.
Developers are better off putting their resources where the reward is, or scaling down.
Having to move city just to be able to buy house sounds like the mark of a failing society. Granny can babysit via skype?
Really? So a sleeping pod will be a desirable residence eventually? I thought the average dwelling size had been increasing at one stage.Quote:
Has been the situation for several generations now. ...
Have you got any references or links to independent studies on that? Why do many other countries have controls? NZ has not bothered collecting much of the information needed until recently.Quote:
But foreign ownership has been shown to have almost zero bearing.
if they do, then the Kiwi dream of being owner-occupiers will remain, and for many this is increasinlgy unachievable, and renting for many will be a poor insecure substitute.Quote:
Tenancy laws are just fine where they are now
My understanding was that Labour if elected would be underwriting, called their KiwiBuild policy. Would probably require a new government department to be created that coordinates developers, landowners, buyers, local body councils etc
But I'm only guessing, there isn't much detail available publicly to explain how it will work
But I know labour constraints are real and limiting building rates already, let alone with a 33% increase in annual builds
No, it's choosing to move city to buy a house (or choosing to stay in Auckland (for example) and delay/forego the house purchase). Has nothing to do with a failing society
Having a baby is a personal responsibility. Enter when ready. It's another trade-off, one that we personally made many years ago. Having children when we could afford it and give them the environment they deserved. We made many sacrifices, no restaurant meals, living in a cheap (cold) farm cottage, two jobs, home made lunches, no lattes, spending holidays working another job etc. Nobody said home ownership was going to be easy
Everyone has their own definition of desirability. Owning a sleeping pod may be preferential to sharing a rental for a single young person. Personal choice
I had also heard the same about increasing dwelling size. But I fail to see any relevance to this discussion - your point was the younger generation was paying more money for less house, not more house
Try MBIE, they published something 6 months or so ago
Xenophobia, something I hope NZ does not get involved with. And it doesn't seem to work in Aussie, Sydney and Melbourne similarly unaffordable to Auckland
When we rented we never felt insecure. My tenants have never felt insecure, except for those boys that stopped paying rent and damaged my house.
The landlord - tenant relationship is 2 way. Respect from both sides leads to a mutually beneficial relationship. I used to get Christmas cards from one of my long term tenants I mentioned above. I watched as the student who first rented my house had a partner move in, got married, had 2 children, and added a dog and a cat. They asked if they could customize the house which I supported if done tastefully (which it was). Everybody wins
Don't believe all the media hype about bad landlords. Most are very good, and simply want a retirement nest egg
The relationship between inflation and increasing income may (or may not) be another broken pre-GFC economic model
I can see the situation of reducing net immigration (NZ-Aus relative economic strength moving back in Aus favour) and a NZ population remaining unwilling to accept price increases, leading to increased wages without significant non-tradable inflation increase, and tradable inflation is showing zero signs of increasing
Then there are the equal-pay settlements than will permeate the job market. Those are meaningful increases
But yes, I totally agree, NZ is better than most of the rest of the world in so many ways. I feel very lucky to be a kiwi
Agree with that. I remember that we hired (must be now 10 years ago) highly skilled people from Germany - and our (NZ) company paid them a better salary than what they got in the same job previously back in Germany.
We are not a low wage country anymore - it is only our productivity which still fits in many sectors better to the "low wage" category.
Time for the unions and for Labour to stop telling porkies ...
If you want a secure home in a stable environment for your family in your home city, where your good job and family are, and the only option is to rent, subject to the current NZ tenancy laws, and risk a lottery of an eviction despite being a good tenant, that is the mark of a failing society imo.
Of course not. Nobody said it was going to get more and more difficult either.Quote:
...Nobody said home ownership was going to be easy
I thought you had said that dwelling sizes had been getting smaller for successive generations. Apologies if I misunderstood your point.Quote:
I had also heard the same about increasing dwelling size. But I fail to see any relevance to this discussion - your point was the younger generation was paying more money for less house, not more house
I disagree. There is a difference in ensuring that your own residents and citizens have preferential access to housing in their own country and the hatred of foreigners. However being outpriced in the housing market and ending up as tenants to absentee foreign landlords could give rise to resentment.Quote:
Xenophobia, something I hope NZ does not get involved with. And it doesn't seem to work in Aussie, Sydney and Melbourne similarly unaffordable to Auckland
True, but even good landlords can evict good tenants? It is a pity that the NZ system has resulted in so little of the NZ household nest egg in financial investments such as pension funds, stocks and shares.Quote:
Don't believe all the media hype about bad landlords. Most are very good, and simply want a retirement nest egg
Looks like Ms Grizzleguts is on One News tonight
Pressure on
Love it
It is true...higher than some lower than others.
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RMW
Our real minimum in ppp terms is above Canada's but below Australia's.
Because one day you could get into the same position, and in any case a society is judged on how it looks after the most powerless.
Decently paid jobs are the problem in general, for that we need good profit margins for businesses, and that means innovation. National doesn't quite know what that means.
Ardern calling National out on the lies and fearmongering.
I generally wont (barring natural disasters, as I have a back up plan
A person who sticks his dick somewhere is not poweless
Innovation is the answer eh? The basics of making a profit is you keep expenses under income. You cant do that when taxes go up and wages go up to Living Wage where there is no increase in productivity.
Innovation can allow productivity, and it allows a margin. Then employers don't need to pay just above the minimum wage. Taxes are generally applied to profits, and GST is tax neutral to a business. I guess I am talking about exporting businesses, an ideal where foreign exchange is being brought in. Allied to those, the service businesses they'll need.
Only if you believe in phallocentrism.
Truly powerful men and women look after the suffering, those down on their luck, the weak and needy.
Increasing the living wage with static productivity, redistributes wealth reversing the trend in the gini disparity. Is stagnating productivity the result of inefficient and ineffective investment of capital in NZ?Quote:
Innovation is the answer eh? The basics of making a profit is you keep expenses under income. You cant do that when taxes go up and wages go up to Living Wage where there is no increase in productivity.
What's National done now? Anything for a quick fundraising buck.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/1...-chinese-spies
This could be from The 101 Things To Do With A Dead Cat by Crosby Texture;)
On the day of the second leaders debate, Mr Joyce made the $11.7B claim, forcing the question of Labour's fiscal reliability to be raised in front of an audience of a million viewers.
Twenty-four hours after Mr Joyce raised the fiscal spectre, all seven senior economists Newshub spoke to said there's no $11.7B hole - but some would raise questions over how tight Labour's budget could be in future years.
If it was an attempt to create a distraction, the aim would be to swing the focus onto Labour's economics; its tax plan and fiscals instead of its new leader.
But if it was a dead cat attempt, Auckland University political studies lecturer Mark Boyd believes it's backfired.
"If it's that kind of thing, where you throw a cat on the table and everyone goes, 'Look at the dead cat', instead of the fire in the background, then it hasn't consumed all of the oxygen in the room," Mr Boyd told Newshub.
Mr Boyd said he believes, "If Crosby Textor was involved [...] they would put more planning into it. This seems to have been done on the fly."
"I think National's scrambling. They are in unknown territory. Six weeks ago they were cruising to victory. Like 2014, it was just a question over whether they would get enough to govern in their own right or whether they would stitch together a coalition."
In the not too distant future we will have proportionally more well paid jobs. Because automation.
Once automation innovation becomes cost effective in a sector, actual humans will be laid off.
It's been happening for years of course. In my first job way back in the day the accounts section - a huge room with more than 30 desks - was overtaken by a new computer system. Five desks against one wall. Automation is only getting smarter and cheaper. Take robotic kiwifruit pickers, now going into production with plans to add functionality such as testing and other produce.
Employers facing national awards and increasing compliance might quite like fewer human workers.
Correct, up to a point. That's why I believe innovation should be directed at smaller businesses, not the already large ones. Callaghan Innovation has plenty of taxpayer funds to give to large outfits, who don't need it and will spend most of it on new automation, reducing staff levels.
If you split the same money up and offer it to smaller businesses, they'll develop new exports and will have to take on more staff to do it. Labour's R&D tax credits were a simple way of doing that, hopefully within a few days they'll be back on the table for numerous SMEs.
Followup on polling techniques to phone lines:
In 2014 about 86% of households had a landline phone, it was dropping (Stats NZ). Since then it's down another 25%, or only about 65% of households reachable on a listed landline, according to this article.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11894517
It's an interesting illustration but I'd make the observation about the size and specification of housing. Most homes in the early 1960s were modest 3 bedroom wooden homes (or brick and tile or even fibrolite cladding) with one bathroom, one WC, a laminate or wood finished kitchen with one sink and a basic Atlas electric range.
Hot water - electric with pressure reducer.
They were typically heated with an open fireplace, wooden joinery and particle board flooring. Lighting was often confined to single incandescent bulb per room.
That's quite different from what we expect from housing today.
Richard hits it on the head
Its Jacinda and 'I' and not Labour and 'we' - dangerous
Hope many read this
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11921804
Labour's policy under Andrew Little was to have a tax review. Labour would take any recommendations to the voters at the next election. Kelvin Davies set out the policy on TV only to be publicly slapped down by Jacinda.
In a "captain's call" Jacinda changed the tax policy to say that a Labour victory was a mandate for Labour to introduce any new tax and at any rate that a nameless committee of "tax experts" recommended, just the family home is off limits.
Absolutely nothing stopping SMEs from applying to Callaghan. In fact they have a specific programme for start ups.
And because Callaghan are technology oriented businesses that receive grants are quite likely to extend .... automation.
I mentioned robotic kiwifruit pickers earlier. 24 hours up time. A good opportunity for those farmers to group together for the capital expenditure.
Labour now not going to implement tax changes in this term if they get in. Good news, but they've revealed their intentions.
The damage is done and tax was not the only reason for the change in the polls.
Labour in turmoil again.
Maybe they know the results of the poll due out tonight.