On to of that there was the axing of many apprenticeships leading to the current shortage of construction workers.
Hell, much of the apprenticeship system itself went out the door with the passage of the old Employment Contracts Act, and NZ has been playing a game of catch-up since. On that note, for all of NZ Labour's issues, their digital apprenticeship policy is a potential deal-maker.
And now for a quick history lesson: the Irishman who gave us the term 'boycott' was a rentier in the land & property business. If enough tenants vote with their feet, could it potentially hold a pin to the bubble, even if it means living out of suitcases or cars or tents?
It seems that the simmering Uber controversy is in danger of proving Ned Ludd right. I've come to the view that the original Luddites weren't opposed to technology, but rather they were opposed to rentier feudalism.
Specifically with Uber, far from cutting out the middlemen - ie the taxi industry and its associated red tape - Uber has basically created a new middleman of its own.
Weldon has emerged from the Board meeting in Auckland.
When asked if he still had the confidence of his board, he replied, “I think so”.
Didn't Caesar remark that he had Brutus' unconditional loyalty in 44 BCE?
It's always the case that when a new supermarket opens, there are at least 10 applicants lining up for each advertised position. It's like the UK Tories' "Labour Isn't Working" posters from 1979, but with the political colours inverted.
I just want to go on record I grow increasingly of the opinion it is primarily a financial bubble not a population pressure issue.
While it is true (I assume) that Auckland needs to build 75000 extra homes to have the same kind of people per household as the rest of the country, it is also true that Auckland needs to build about zero extra homes to have the same kind of people per household as Auckland did in 2001 (approximately zero, there are a few small changes in household composition over the period). For decades the provinces have been getting older and emptying out, so comparing the household sizes of the places people are moving from as the reference point does not give the whole picture.
Looking at it as a financial bubble, the issues become things like who has access to what financial resources and how attractive tulip bulbs are as a store of money.
Yep, in any case, fiscal bubbles are a common symptom of rentierisation or market-cornering.
3D art time...
So we are fucked, because the government won't do anything until the political cost of doing nothing is higher than the political cost of doing something, by which time the subsequent crash will be a economic disaster.
It seems the housing bubble is an ongoing game of chicken. Whoever's in charge if/when the bubble bursts will probably find themselves out of power for a generation in the same vein as Herbert Hoover and Forbes-Coates. The same goes if whoever's in power deliberately pushes the fiscal nuke button, and is seen to be the second coming of Joe Stalin.
I suspect that in private, Key & Little are both hoping that it's the other one who's holding the housing crash bomb if/when it goes off.
I always enjoy the attacks I get from boomers when I mention inter-generational theft on PA. What else could you call the support by mainly older home owners for the immoral housing policy of John Key's government? It has been 8 years watching a slow fiscal train wreck occur. 8 years of listening to those benefiting financially saying "shit happens". There has been a breakdown in trust that may take a generation to mend.
There's already a name for them: Generation Rentier. It's more class-related than age-related, since boomers don't have a monopoly on rentierism - think Martin Shkreli.
Luke W: To fix the housing issue needs a multi-pronged approach. On top of what you suggest, there's also non-resident stamp duty, some form of regional development (but not a rerun of Think Big), and a big boost in investment for skills for those least able to retrain.
And I'm also head-desking about Generation Rentier's grip on the housing market. It came about from the accident of history that was the 1987 Crash which turned a lot of people off shares for life. It may take another accident of history to pop the housing bubble, because no one wants to be seen to poop the party by pointing out the real estate gold rush is a fool's gold rush.
In this age of skype etc, geography is less and less relevant, jobs don't have to be close together.
Telecommuting is good, but it's still slow to catch on in NZ, and it's generally not the employee's choice to do so. Once again, unless you're a company director who can afford to commute from the wop-wops, or have specialist skills that can be taken anywhere, most of us are still required to punch-clock.
Do I blame those who have decided to invest in property? - to be honest, no, and the urge of some to call these people names such as 'generation rentier' doesn't help the debate one iota.
Do I think Auckland needs more intensification?, hell yes (and those who oppose it for self-interested reasons probably do deserve to be called names).
'Generation Rentier' is still a more laser-guided term than 'boomers', and the title has been justifiably earned by those who think they're free marketeers who suddenly become born-again statists when they sense any whiff of creative disruption to their rentier gains. Also, Martin Shkreli goes to show that rentierism isn't exclusively a boomer thing.