Polity by Rob Salmond

Read Post

Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland

521 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 21 Newer→ Last

  • talkie_toaster, in reply to Hebe,

    The problem is that this analysis is fatally flawed, and not much better than anecdata.

    That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. My opinion, as someone who uses stats every day, is that it's not at all flawed. I see a lot of claims about the analysis that were not only not made in the analysis, but were actually explicitly rejected in the analysis. Example: the claim that the analysis can identify the residence status of individual buyers based on surname. It's an obviously stupid claim, which has been pointed out many times in this blog.

    Except that this claim was never made and was in fact explicitly rejected.

    First, and to get it out of the way, these data to not – repeat, not – 100% prove the residency status of any particular buyer.

    This is what I mean when I say "faux-outrage" and I'm sorry if this term offended or was misunderstood. I mean: putting words in people's mouths, and getting offended at those words.

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to talkie_toaster,

    you uncritically accepted this framing

    The first thing I read on this was Rob Salmond's piece here, yesterday, and I became uncomfortable straight away because the whole "yellow peril" schtick was there, immediately. I felt the vibrations of a dogwhistle coming from Labour before I read anything else, because there are so many historical precedents for this. No one framed it for me; LABOUR did their own framing. The Nats didn't have to do any work.

    Here's the thing: you can think that non-resident foreign investment and our lack of regulation are a problem AND, ALSO, AS WELL AS THAT, think that this is racist dogwhistle politics. The two are not mutually exclusive, at all.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to talkie_toaster,

    like a flock of sheep ready for slaughter, you uncritically accepted this framing

    Gosh that superior intellect of yours must be a burden.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

  • talkie_toaster, in reply to Sacha,

    Of course they are – but this piece of research does not show that.

    Good to see that we agree on that at least.This piece of research really never claimed to definitively show that; the research claimed that:

    on the preponderance of all available evidence from the aggregate data that there is likely a large impact of offshore investment from China in Auckland’s real estate market

    Note the qualifiers. So, according to the available evidence, including the lived experience of all Aucklanders (of all races) in the housing market, and testimony from actual Chinese investors, and the considered opinion of experts in the real estate market, the conclusions of the study are correct. So, now the issue becomes: why isn't this the issue?

    Why have you, according to the content of your posts, uncritically accepted the right's framing of this issue: that it's about racism and not the conclusions of the analysis?

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • talkie_toaster, in reply to Danielle,

    The Nats didn’t have to do any work.

    No, they never do. You do it for them by focussing on the method and not the conclusions... despite the fact that nobody really disagrees with the conclusions, and despite the fact that the method is entirely robust according to the considered opinion of statistically literate people. And that's the problem.

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac, in reply to talkie_toaster,

    Well said talkie toaster in all your comments. Sanity and fair appraisal.

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • talkie_toaster, in reply to Sacha,

    Gosh that superior intellect of yours must be a burden.

    Honestly, I'm OK with my superior intellect. Appreciate your concern though.

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd, in reply to talkie_toaster,

    Why, in other words, isn’t it the controversy?

    Um, because it's something we basically agree about?

    you’re defending the Labour party on charges of racism,

    No, you're defending the Labour party on charges of racism. I'm attacking it.

    And that’s why Labour loses elections.

    I think that's a complex issue with many causes, not least of which is that losing is itself a demoralising condition that promotes internal conflict. And I'm more annoyed on a basis of principle than tactics. Having said that, laying yourself open to charges of hypocrisy through poor framing AND pissing off your own activist base probably aren't helping. That's what I would call an unforced error.

    Personally, I have devoted many hours and dollars to basic grunt work for the party, with little impact that I am aware of on its strategy, patiently accepting what I see as problems, and I hardly think the party is hurt by slavish compliance with my opinions; in fact quite the reverse.

    Is the Labour party Public Address commentators and their views, or is its caucus and the statements they make? Who is to blame for the party losing, Public Address commentators, or the people in charge and who are its public face?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    You do it for them by focussing on the method

    I haven’t mentioned jack squat about the method (statistics: not my thing). I’m saying that if you know *any* Australian and NZ immigration history this is a dogwhistle that’s been periodically used for over a century in politics and handwaving it away with “that’s just what they WANT you to do, sheeple” is really insulting to the victims of that racist dogwhistling. If you don’t want us to talk about how shitty this is, Labour, DON’T PLAY THE DOGWHISTLE CARD. It’s pretty fucking simple.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • talkie_toaster, in reply to Sacha,

    I did. Learn to troll better.

    Sacha, just to point out: not only did you not state that the conclusions of the analysis are fundamentally incorrect, you stated that:

    __I have not seen you state that Chinese foreign investors aren’t a major driver of the Auckland housing market.__

    <q>**Of course they are** – but this piece of research does not show that.

    Which seems to imply that you do think the conclusions are correct.

    So there I am.. learning to troll better.

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • talkie_toaster,

    I haven’t mentioned jack squat about the method (statistics: not my thing). I’m saying that if you know *any* Australian and NZ immigration history this is a dogwhistle that’s been periodically used for over a century in politics and handwaving it away with “that’s just what they WANT you to do, sheeple” is really insulting to the victims of that racist dogwhistling. If you don’t want us to talk about how shitty this is, Labour, DON’T PLAY THE DOGWHISTLE CARD. It’s pretty fucking simple.

    I know what dogwhistles are and I agree that it's gross. The idea that this draws conclusions on race is an opinion, and one that is explicitly rejected by the author of the study. Includes race, uses race, draws conclusions that are based on an uncontroversial correlation between racial data and nationality: yes, sure. But draws conclusions based on race? The author is so careful to explicitly reject that.

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • talkie_toaster, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    Having said that, laying yourself open to charges of hypocrisy through poor framing AND pissing off your own activist base probably aren’t helping.

    I guess my problem is that there are a billion posts about percieved racism and no posts about capital flow from the tanking Chinese stockmarket, the price of Auckland houses, the difficulty young people face in owning a house, or any other issues that matter to the people who vote for Labour (rather than the volunteers who work for Labour).

    What’s the point of pleasing your activist base? Really, are they a major voting block? Surely pleasing your voter base is more important?

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd, in reply to talkie_toaster,

    On this particular case, I guess no one wanted to write a blog about it, and as a mere commenter, I think we’re mostly cued by blog post topics. A quick search on “site:publicaddress.net housing Auckland ” suggests that housing issues in Auckland have been the topic of blog posts since at least 2013. You really, really need to read the back catalogue here before making ridiculous claims that bloggers or commenters here ignore “the difficulty young people face in owning a house, or any other issues that matter to the people who vote for Labour (rather than the volunteers who work for Labour).” You might like to check on my commenting history before leaping to conclusions about my normal stance on Labour too (hint, I am mostly defending it to people who don’t belong and don’t vote for the party and don’t want to give it time or money).

    The point of pleasing your activist base is that they are somewhat necessary to running a party that relies on volunteer labour and has no money.

    It’s also worth considering who Labour’s base are. By definition, they are not people who sometimes vote Labour, or might vote Labour. They are people who always and forever vote Labour. It may or may not be that the current base is similar to the membership in composition and opinions. I would be interested to know, in fact.

    In any case, what I learned from some actual profession political consultants with form at workshops in the last year or two is that ideally, you build on your base by devising messages that are consistent with their principles but resonate further out. You don’t shit on your base to prove you’re not extremists, (triangulating, or more graphically, “hippy punching”), and you don’t fire your base up with messages that alienate other people who are basically sympathetic but not core voters. The matter at hand seems like something of a self-wedge to me.

    And here I am, lured into debating prudential matters of success in politics, where, as noted, my irritation is fundamentally based on ethical principle. There are places we should hesitate to go irrespective of whether it would be helpful, and for me, this is one of them. Opinion only, you don’t have to share it.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie, in reply to talkie_toaster,

    If your response to new people trying to have an opinion is to accuse them of being whale oil trolls that's sad. I vote green and have never posted on any of those blogs.

    Hi Talkie... just a quick post to let you know that there are some people here who agree with your thoughts. To me the real issue is blindingly obvious but others seem intent on joining Nick Smith in playing the race card.

    Sure... if the Labour party was inciting riots and suggesting we attack asians in the street, that would certainly be a race issue. And while some may feel it's unfair to single out Chinese buyers, it's hard to ignore the fact that one particular ethnic group is currently buying huge amounts of property all over the world. To ignore that fact misses the point completely.

    Maybe we should take a step back and actually discuss the real issue. There is a housing crisis in Auckland and our government is doing it's upmost to ignore the fact.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1388 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    It's also worth noting that the commentator base at PA is hardly Labour die-hards. If anything the center of their opinions would seem to lie between Labour and the Greens. This isn't a place predicated around getting the Labour Party back into power - most people just see that as a probable inevitability if getting National out of power is our goal. That doesn't mean they have to suck up every stupid idea Labour ever has. If they attack this whole thing as a dog-whistle then that's a sign of how important an issue they find racial discrimination to be. That might not be the case for the Labour base as a whole - I feel pretty sure it isn't, really. There's an awful lot of racist left wingers out there. That doesn't mean I have to agree with any of them.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10641 posts Report Reply

  • talkie_toaster, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    You really, really need to read the back catalogue here

    No offense, but frankly I have better things to do with my time. Watching paint dry, scooping out my own eyeballs with a salad server, that kind of thing. I take your point that I'm not familiar with previous discussions.

    profession political consultants

    Just lol. How’s their track record?

    But, I take your other points, fair enough.

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • talkie_toaster, in reply to Alfie,

    Personally I have no problem with discussions of race and dog-whistle politics and they are an issue. Just not in this case. I just think people have gone straight from "racists are going to like this" to "it's racist" with minimal discussion. Sure, racists will interpret this analysis in their usual asshat racist way. Doesn't mean we have to.

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to talkie_toaster,

    "There aren't any posts about [thing]!"
    "There are heaps of posts about [thing], have a look --"
    "NOPE. But why aren't you talking about [thing]?"

    Weak sauce, dude.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to talkie_toaster,

    I've explained myself clearly enough by now, and your continued refusal to take it as expressed reflects on your integrity, not mine.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

  • talkie_toaster, in reply to Danielle,

    eh?

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to talkie_toaster,

    why isn't this the issue?

    Because Labour still can't manage political communication. It's not us here or the righties who made this about race.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

  • talkie_toaster, in reply to Sacha,

    You directly contradicted yourself.

    In response to my post

    if you think the analysis comes to fundamentally incorrect conclusions, just say so. Why can’t you just say so?

    you said

    I did.

    I took this to mean that you think the analysis comes to fundamentally incorrect conclusions.and that Chinese foreign investors aren’t a major driver of the Auckland housing market

    Then in response to my post

    I have not seen you state that Chinese foreign investors aren’t a major driver of the Auckland housing market.

    You said

    Of course they are

    I took this to mean that you think the analysis comes to fundamentally correct conclusions and that Chinese foreign investors are a major driver of the Auckland housing market.

    One of these things is not like the other.

    Aucks • Since Jul 2015 • 30 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Well, we're going round in circles here, but speaking only for myself, I resent the suggestion that I am dancing like a gullible puppet to a National tune. Labour (nobody else) have decided to do this (and it must be the party decision-makers, not just a maverick MP or blogger). Labour have decided to make headlines (what else did they want or expect?) about their big reveal - surnames belonging to ethnic minorities. That doesn't get a free pass, by playing the old game of "that's not the issue". It IS the issue, because the Labour party wanted it so.

    As generally agreed here, there's a major housing/market problem, and Labour have up till now been highlighting it in ways that have been reasonable and (to me) effective. Then they decided to change tack - radically, and disturbingly. I can't recall them doing anything this bad before (as in actively promoting, as opposed to passively tolerating Winston).

    I'm a social democrat, I have party voted Labour at every MMP election, and I think it stinks.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1324 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    There’s an awful lot of racist left wingers out there.

    Don Brash demonstrated that when his rasicist speech swung the popularity from Labour to National. And the Labour Party responce to Maori having there day in court over the seabed and foreshore ownership, says what there polling tells them.

    On the bright side, at-least the New Zealand Labour party style left, isn’t particularly authoritarian-at present.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    Regarding the validity of comparing Indian Residents and Chinese Residents. Even without access to Labours internal data, if you go to the census

    http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE8021

    You can say

    - the populations of those that declare themselves ethnically Indian nfd or chinese nfd are about the same
    - the number in each population making more than 50000 is about the same (so economically similar for those in a house buying range)
    - I've you look at directs of residence, Chinese and Indian correlated better with each other than with New Zealand European (so are living in the same areas at district level)
    -Have a pretty similar age profile

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1445 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 21 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.