Actually the older cohorts aren't that well placed either... if they live in Auckland.
See this analysis by Thomas Lumley on Stats Chat
home ownership flattens off from 45 in Auckland (first lot of graphs).
In the third lot of graphs, after about 45ish people in Auckland in the same age cohort are less likely to own a home as they grow older i.e. the lines are sloping down in the first plot of the third lot of graphs, a little but not much for the rest of NZ.
Great stats – thanks for the link.
Care to reference your methodology and data sources? I'm not really sure what you're claiming here. All mortgage lending is not "balanced" against house price values. Furthermore, we know that a mortgage comprises a deposit and a mortgage loan. The former is "saved into existence", while the latter is "lent into existence." The former is likely to be a product of one's labor, while the latter represents an asset to the bank by the creation of a contractual obligation (there is no corresponding deposit).
Amount spent on houses-
The value of new housing stock which is not part of the previous property cycle of buying and selling. Via data from Aaron Schiff @aschiff on Twitter in early August
Amount borrowed to spend on houses-
Reserve bank's records of monthly amounts of lending to housing by banks and other institutions
OK, I think I got it. Where I got confused is when you seemed to be saying that there is a disconnect between mortgage borrowing and the total value of housing stock, but that's not what you're saying at all.
“If anyone felt that it was [racist], then of course we would apologise for that. But that was not our intent.”
As an update to the state of race relations under the current "if anyone felt that it was racist" Labour led Government, my wife was given the "Chinese eyes" today at work by a migrant worker from Tuvalu.
Isn't that the migrant worker's problem, rather than the government's?
That’s the state of things – supervisor was informed – I’d argue that blatant racism in the workplace without repercussions is a Government problem – I even assumed – perhaps wrongly – that this is why we have a Human Rights Commission – but more to my point – when folk inherit leadership – the leaders or leadership team tend to send signals – as we’re seeing with Winston right now – signals which may be taken as indication of the type of leadership to expect – the type of environment they’re comfortable with and may seek to maintain – and so – *checking pocketwatch* – who is it today? Rob Jones is the racist du jour, occupying what appears to be a much sought after position in the limelight since this administration took office. In a media environment which is exploiting it for all its worth. Power, influence and using both responsibly to send the most humanitarian – rather than the most politically expedient – signals is underrated.
TLDR: old skooly racism in the workplace sure as shit is my Government’s problem, I can’t speak for yours. in a structurally racist colony the Government is the last instrument I’d resolve of accountability for a racist culture.
Is “migrant worker” someone who has come to NZ short-term for work, or someone following a job from place to place within NZ? In either case, it’s not clear we can generalise from their behaviour to the “culture” of a nation or of their current workplace.
Better evidence for "workplace culture" would be coworkers’/supervisors’ response to that behaviour.
my general impression and experience is that as with any educated adult clinging to the notion that new zealand isn’t systemically and culturally “racist AF" – no amount of evidence i can furnish you with could banish those lingering quibbles.
which is not to say I can’t elaborate on the above allegations in some detail – but for what purpose? your entertainment? I left a snapshot of working conditions – take from it what you will.
Before I forget there was a follow up article. With certain details lacking some reading between the lines is required, my own inferences based on what is presented rather than what may have occurred. Notably the article appears to muddy the waters by presenting ’reverse racism’ as an issue:
Another Herald reader said racism was not just against Asian migrants.
“We are from the UK and we have been told to go back England – we have been here 25 years,” the woman wrote.
This is, taken at face value, arguably xenophobia as opposed to racism – issues best not conflated, bearing in mind some may experience one *or* the other while others experience *both* – and obviously, as mentioned previously; the historic, systemic and power dynamics.
Of more relevance to my above point was another’s testimony:
The racism came from two colleagues but what was most alarming was that when he reported it to management “nothing really happened”, the man said.
“Management’s comment was, ‘It depends upon how you perceive it’,” he said.
In this instance:
’It depends upon how you perceive it’
ostensibly coming from the same school of thought as:
"If anyone felt that it was [racist], then of course we would apologise"
One from the public sphere the other from the private, and both very much in their way indicative of the types of gaslighting employed by the hegemony to minimise and erase the concerns of minorities:
these perceptions of racism are often treated as exaggerated or delusional.
The conclusion reached in this study being that these types of defensive responses to racism being called out are a product of positionality:
Together, these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that perceptions of racism are influenced by the relevance of one’s racial identity. Individuals in the majority group may be less likely to perceive systemic racism because it presents a greater challenge to a mainstream worldview.
and of historical and cultural awareness:
Ultimately, this research underscores the importance of historical knowledge — and activities, like Black History Month, that highlight marginalized forms of historical knowledge — for understanding current events.
“From 1893, the majority of women were able to vote, but Chinese people (of all genders) were not allowed to vote in New Zealand until 1952, because of their ‘alien’ status.”
duly elaborated on:
From 1893, the majority of women were able to vote, but Chinese people (of all genders) were not allowed to vote in New Zealand until 1952, because of their “alien” status. This is almost 60 years after the suffragettes achieved voting rights for Pākehā and Māori women. Chinese people weren’t allowed to vote because they weren’t allowed to become citizens of New Zealand between 1908-1952, this is over 100 years after the first Chinese person arrived. The structural racism in the New Zealand immigration system has denied the rights accorded to people based on this Pākehā idea of citizenship, or “naturalisation” as they called it. This is often omitted in accounts of how “we” were the first country to achieve women’s suffrage.
One of myriad examples of the hegemonic (invariably Pākehā) subjectivity and selective nostalgia being used to erase significant and prolonged instances of institutional discrimination in Aotearoa.
2018 marks the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand. On 19 September 1893 the Electoral Act 1893 was passed, giving all women in New Zealand the right to vote. As a result of this landmark legislation, New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world in which all women had the right to vote in parliamentary elections.