How much demand is that? How many people rent a house a the lower end of the market? How many people are you talking about? How much will it keep prices lower by? How much are they going up by anyway? How much will they cost? How many are being built anyway? How will it affect the quantity of the ones that are being built? How many people will the population be by the time they’re finished being built? How much effect does building of new houses actually have on population?
I’ll get my research team right on that.
It’s a very well held theory with lots of real world evidence.
And a whole lot of counterexamples. It's so useless for any practical purpose that it's only used in theoretical arguments.
but demand for housing is moderately predictable at the lower end.
Then predict away.
State housing competes with the bottom 10-20% of income levels
Because only poor people ever buy cheap houses? It's like landlords never even existed.
I’ll get my research team right on that.
So actually it's rather a complicated thing then? But surely there's "lots of real world evidence". Surely making predictions about how much prices will be affected is child's play? Tell me, even in the broadest sweeping strokes, how you would go about putting a number on it?
As a community worker of may years I offer just this, believe nothing of what your hear, and half of what you see! Via our news reporting system we see only what representations the media want the General Public to see. In truth, the gaps in socio-economic boundaries are far wider and impacting than we are ever told. One question that needs answering is: what is happening to all the $$$ being gradually, (and not so gradually) from the public sector? The public fund for supporting Community Groups who use volunteers to assist those who are in need and at risk is, and has been a sinking lid policy for many years. It is about to get much worse! Volunteers form a huge part of a work force that is not actually taken into account as far as income saved is concerned. At one time, some years ago, the amount of man hours if calculated as paid time, for one sector was $10,000,000.00 per year. That figure was not definite, as many hours are not recorded in a manner for such a calculation. Government needs to recognise that Volunteers are an very important part of the community bindings, and advocate for more use of volunteers, as they make friends, network, and learn work skills. New Zealanders with English as a second language also make a difference here.
So, back to my question: where is all the money being withdrawn from services going? We are all spending more under the user pays system, costs for services, power, telephone, etc are increasing, as is food, clothing, and transport, so it isnt going there. Importers, traders, businesses that manufacture goods to sell, and export, all have to pay to do this, and much of the cost is in duty, customs etc that goes into the government revenue coffers. Salaries and wages are not keeping up with increasing inflation, Beneficiaries, (those awful people who bludge!) are not receiving enough to keep body and soul together, never mind support a family, particularly when there are children or others who have serious health issues.
If anyone chose to look back over the last few years, and research how much we have lost in $$$$ from the services, it would be realised that much of that money would have made a difference to the housing situation in this country. There have been over the last 20/30 years several practical building methods that cut the time, and cost of constructing a house for example. Modulok/kitset style is one. Habitat for Humanity, I understand, uses group work, (like barn raising?). Some of these ideas are worth implementing today when the need for fast, cost effective, sound construction is the requirement. Sweat Equity, where the future home owners put in time and energy, is another way of building equity.
Which ever way we look at it, unless the current system is restructured, New Zealand will end up with overwhelming poverty, illness and crime.
Russell owns an ex-state house and enjoys the social equity he experiences in that. Russell spends considerable time and energy defending the Labour government, over almost anything, , on Twitter, except if they don't come around to his way of thinking about drugs because that's his tribe.
Russell used to be a series journalist who I respect and feel gratitude toward. Seriously, what the fuck is up. The accomodation supplement helped me to pay the mortgage on my ex-maori affaires house in Whangarei while I was new parent and getting an arts degree. Thats why I'm not part of the patronised classes of "needy" homeless people.
Social Equity please, grown ups need to actually act. Endless dribbling on Twitter only makes you 'feel' like you did something.
And this was my comment that piece Russell just linked to from his Twitter.
“ The exception is those who managed to land with a mortgaged home, but don’t have the income to service it. The subsidy systom can help keep these people out of poverty. This is particularly helpful to solo parents.
It would rather be nice to hear some talking about getting people who live in poverty, into home ownership with subsidized loans.
Poverty sucks. And by the way, it has almost nothing to do with children rocking up to school in barefoot.”
And if you go back and read the first lot of comments there are high levels of engagement -ie people writing actual whole paragraphs of enlightening thought. Compare that to the Twitter current Twitter conversations about this same social dilemma today.
Russell linked this article from his Twitter feed to do nothing more that get some told you so pats on the back. And as you would expect, predictably as a man made algorithm. That is what happened, but none us are any the wiser about anything in particular.