On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move
to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling
politicians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.--
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities. http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move to
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling politiciansand their agendas.
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move to
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling politiciansand their agendas.
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:and their agendas.
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling politicians
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating >services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities. >http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move
politicians and their agendas.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating >services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities. >http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales to rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already
ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed?
From increased national wealth generated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or
new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra
and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them?
(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance
local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an even
better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on?
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home
owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged
owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof
over one's head' coming a poor second?
It would mean a failure of the market.
People want to live and work in Auckland then they have to pay the
'going rate'...
The fat heifer seems to think that cutting house values in half is going
to solve something..
Her knowledge of finances is in line with any other subject she waffles
on about
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move to
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling politicians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating
services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales to rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already
ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth generated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or
new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra
and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them?
(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance
local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an even
better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on?
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home
owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged
owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof
over one's head' coming a poor second?
Zone is a facet of a non-free market. Free markets don't have zoning.
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling politicians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating >>> services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales to
rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already
ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth generated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or
new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra
and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them?
(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance
local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an even
better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on?
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home
owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged
owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof
over one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solution that >provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a start.
The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
On Thursday, 28 July 2016 17:51:33 UTC+12, Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
=20
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:=20
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to mo= >ve to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling polit= >icians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating= >=20
services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-= >is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3ae= >ee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales to
rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already
ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
=20
So, then, how financed?
That's already been at least partially answered. Generally the development = >lecy on building consents covers the infrastructure for new subdivisions. T= >o assist this the government have offered an interest free $1bil so the inf= >rastructure build can start without the council borrowing elsewhere ahead o= >f getting the actual levy revenue.
From increased national wealth generated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or
new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra
and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them?
(chicken and egg.)
=20
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance
local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an even
better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on?
=20
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home
owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged
owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof
over one's head' coming a poor second?
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase. >>>>
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move
politicians and their agendas.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating >>> services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales to
rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already
ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth generated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or
new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra
and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them?
(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance
local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an even
better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on?
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home
owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged
owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof
over one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solution that >provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a start.
The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly make any
saving difficult,
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this: http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an obstacle to
regular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home when it’s their period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Others
resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling used
pads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and other materials—putting them at risk of infection and sickness.”
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also for
university students who typically don’t have much money. “Some
university students can’t afford to take public transport or have to
skip meals when it’s their period so they have money to buy pads and tampons.”
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:over their working life earn a far higher premium than the cost of their loans.
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling politicians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating >> >>> services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales to
rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already
ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth generated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or
new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra
and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them?
(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance
local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an even
better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on?
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home
owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged
owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof
over one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solution that
provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a start.
The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly make any
saving difficult,
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with qualifications and
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an obstacle to
regular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home when it’s
their period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Others
resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling used
pads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and other
materials—putting them at risk of infection and sickness.”
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.
What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also for
university students who typically don’t have much money. “Some
university students can’t afford to take public transport or have to
skip meals when it’s their period so they have money to buy pads and
tampons.”
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and getting by with a little care and effort.
There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and indeed healthy for society.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
wrote:
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >> >>
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase. >> >>>>
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to
politicians and their agendas.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling
generating
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income
and over their working life earn a far higher premium than the cost of their loans.services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales to >> >> rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already
ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth generated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or >> >> new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra
and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them?
(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance
local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an even >> >> better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on? >> >>
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home
owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged
owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof
over one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solution that >> >provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a start.
The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly make any
saving difficult,
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with qualifications
Given that we haven't had student loans for a lifetime that is sheer
wishful thinking on your part.
it’sbut many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an obstacle to
regular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home when
their period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Others
resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling used
pads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and other
materials—putting them at risk of infection and sickness.”
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.
For those that have enough to pay, yes. Apparently if you are poor you
can't afford some things - whodathunkit!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgirls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items
with a little care and effort.
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also for
university students who typically don’t have much money. “Some
university students can’t afford to take public transport or have to
skip meals when it’s their period so they have money to buy pads and
tampons.”
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and getting by
healthy for society.There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and indeed
What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 16:46:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:I meant a working lifetime - sorry for not making that clear. That
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >> >> >>
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase. >> >> >>>>
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling politicians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating
services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales to >> >> >> rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already >> >> >> ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth generated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or >> >> >> new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra >> >> >> and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them?
(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance
local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an even >> >> >> better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on? >> >> >>
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home
owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged
owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof >> >> >> over one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solution that >> >> >provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a start.
The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly make any
saving difficult,
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with qualifications and over their working life earn a far higher premium than the cost of their loans.
Given that we haven't had student loans for a lifetime that is sheer
wishful thinking on your part.
Don't need to over a lifetime, dummy. Long enough to pay off the debt and demonstrate a higher income with the qualification will do.
DPF presents the StatisticsNZ sourced numbers for income with/without a degreehere against the median student loan: >http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/11/is_13300_a_good_investment_for_a_degree.html
No need for wishful thinking - the numbers tell the story.
Which is exactly the point. It is embarrassing for girls that cannot
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an obstacle to
regular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home when it’s
their period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Others
resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling used
pads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and other
materials—putting them at risk of infection and sickness.”
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.
For those that have enough to pay, yes. Apparently if you are poor you
can't afford some things - whodathunkit!
It's all less than a cup of coffee you twit: >http://www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/catalog/health-beauty/feminine-care
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgirls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items
Yeah I'm sure they can't afford $5 one week a month.
What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also for
university students who typically don’t have much money. “Some
university students can’t afford to take public transport or have to
skip meals when it’s their period so they have money to buy pads and
tampons.”
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and getting by with a little care and effort.
There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and indeed healthy for society.
I'd say about 3-4%.
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:30:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 16:46:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >> >>
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net>
increase.
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland
to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people
politicians and their agendas.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling
generating
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income
toservices will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities. >> >> >>> http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales
and/orrapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already >> >> >> ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth generated >> >> >> through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing
evennew sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra >> >> >> and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them? >> >> >> (chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance >> >> >> local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an
on?better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding
that
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home >> >> >> owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged >> >> >> owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof >> >> >> over one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solution
qualifications and over their working life earn a far higher premium than the cost of their loans.provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a start.
The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly make any >> >> saving difficult,
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with
demonstrate a higher income with the qualification will do.
Given that we haven't had student loans for a lifetime that is sheer
wishful thinking on your part.
Don't need to over a lifetime, dummy. Long enough to pay off the debt and
I meant a working lifetime - sorry for not making that clear. That
certainly used to be the case, but we don't know whether that will
continue in future - and statistics cannot predict the future. We have
not had the experience of both high student loans and as high a level
of house prices relative to incomes.
degree here against the median student loan:DPF presents the StatisticsNZ sourced numbers for income with/without a
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/11/is_13300_a_good_investment_for_a_degree.html
No need for wishful thinking - the numbers tell the story.
As I said above, statistics can only measure what has happened in the
past.
it’s
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an obstacle to >> >> regular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home when
their period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Others
resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling used
pads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and other >> >> materials—putting them at risk of infection and sickness.”
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.
For those that have enough to pay, yes. Apparently if you are poor you
can't afford some things - whodathunkit!
It's all less than a cup of coffee you twit: >http://www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/catalog/health-beauty/feminine-care
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgirls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items
Yeah I'm sure they can't afford $5 one week a month.Which is exactly the point. It is embarrassing for girls that cannot
afford modern products - using rags as was the experience of women
until the 1960's/1970s - they are difficult to deal with and they
smell -making many young people embarrassed enough to not attend
school. Most schools apparently now provide such products through the
schol office, but even that is embarrassing for some girls. The
relevant income is of course the family income, and there are already significant pressures on parents of secondary school age children, to
the extent that school trips are being curtailed due to lack of funds
/ lack of ability of parents to provide for the costs.
So your acnowledgement of the problem is appreciated - the staff of
girl's schools will of course have even greater certainty than your
just being sure.
by with a little care and effort.
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also for
university students who typically don’t have much money. “Some
university students can’t afford to take public transport or have to >> >> skip meals when it’s their period so they have money to buy pads and >> >> tampons.”
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and getting
healthy for society.
There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and indeed
What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?
I'd say about 3-4%.
It is unfrtunately higher than that at present - we have unemployment
higher than that level
acknowledge cannot afford feminine hygeine products are not all
unemployed.
I'd like to know why liebor aren't bemoaning the fact that
houses in Auckland aren't the same price as they were in 1980..
And what other crazies is the large green going to come up with?
Auckland house prices are determined by the market, the cost of land,
the price of materials, a left leaning council unwilling to issue
building permits and the cost of labour exacerbated by
the H&S regulations
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 08:38:28 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
I'd like to know why liebor aren't bemoaning the fact that
houses in Auckland aren't the same price as they were in 1980..
And what other crazies is the large green going to come up with?
Auckland house prices are determined by the market, the cost of land,
the price of materials, a left leaning council unwilling to issue
building permits and the cost of labour exacerbated by
the H&S regulations
Apart from the 'left leaning council' bit the above applies to the
whole of NZ.
What is different about Auckland is the 'the market' - demand
outstrips supply more than any other region in NZ.
There are some logical options available to the government:
- to enter Auckland city requires a visitors permit that expires after
30 days after which you are an overstayer
- to move to Auckland, a permanent residents permit is required.
Existing Auckland residents have this permit as of right.
-residential property buyers must get a certificate from a JP or
equivalent that certifies that they have a current Auckland permanent residents permit.
All of the above taken together have the effect of restricting demand, scaring the bejesus out of foreign investors, and having a
near-immediate effect to reduce property prices, but the price paid is restriction of the right of move to Auckland and the bureaucracy
required to enforce it.
I would not be surprised if the Greens were to adopt policies like
this.
The alternative is the comparatively timid efforts of the Government
to date - taking far too long to take effect but not imposing
additional rights restrictions.
--
Crash McBash
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 20:05:23 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:to
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:30:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 16:46:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >> >> >>
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling politicians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating
services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities. >> >> >> >>> http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales
Stop wasting time with your senseless wittering.I meant a working lifetime - sorry for not making that clear. Thatrapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already
ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth generated >> >> >> >> through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or
new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra
and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them? >> >> >> >> (chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance >> >> >> >> local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an even
better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on?
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home >> >> >> >> owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged >> >> >> >> owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof
over one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solution that
provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a start.
The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly make any >> >> >> saving difficult,
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with qualifications and over their working life earn a far higher premium than the cost of their loans.
Given that we haven't had student loans for a lifetime that is sheer
wishful thinking on your part.
Don't need to over a lifetime, dummy. Long enough to pay off the debt and demonstrate a higher income with the qualification will do.
It makes no difference - a working lifetime was the example calculated anyway.
you're a bot.certainly used to be the case, but we don't know whether that will
continue in future - and statistics cannot predict the future. We have
not had the experience of both high student loans and as high a level
of house prices relative to incomes.
DPF presents the StatisticsNZ sourced numbers for income with/without a degree here against the median student loan:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/11/is_13300_a_good_investment_for_a_degree.html
No need for wishful thinking - the numbers tell the story.
As I said above, statistics can only measure what has happened in the
past.
And what happens in the past will happen again in the future. People with degrees will continue to earn more than those without.
Which is exactly the point. It is embarrassing for girls that cannot
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an obstacle to
regular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home when it’s >> >> >> their period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Others
resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling used
pads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and other >> >> >> materials—putting them at risk of infection and sickness.”
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.
For those that have enough to pay, yes. Apparently if you are poor you
can't afford some things - whodathunkit!
It's all less than a cup of coffee you twit:
http://www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/catalog/health-beauty/feminine-care
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgirls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items
Yeah I'm sure they can't afford $5 one week a month.
Oh stop being stupid. Of course they can afford $5 and if they are "embarrassed" then they just need to get the fuck over that.
afford modern products - using rags as was the experience of women
until the 1960's/1970s - they are difficult to deal with and they
smell -making many young people embarrassed enough to not attend
school. Most schools apparently now provide such products through the
schol office, but even that is embarrassing for some girls. The
relevant income is of course the family income, and there are already
significant pressures on parents of secondary school age children, to
the extent that school trips are being curtailed due to lack of funds
/ lack of ability of parents to provide for the costs.
Blah blah blah. It's five fucking dollars. Don't tell me they can't save that from some other less important spend. We have one of the most generous benefit systems after all.
So your acnowledgement of the problem is appreciated - the staff of
girl's schools will of course have even greater certainty than your
just being sure.
You really are too thick to read, aren't you? No wonder people sometimes think
What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also for
university students who typically don’t have much money. “Some
university students can’t afford to take public transport or have to >> >> >> skip meals when it’s their period so they have money to buy pads and >> >> >> tampons.”
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and getting by with a little care and effort.
There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and indeed healthy for society.
I'd say about 3-4%.
It is unfortunately higher than that at present - we have unemployment
higher than that level
Unemployment is not the same thing as those who are not quite smart enough to get buy. Students are not unemployed you dimwit.
, and the parents of some of the girls that you
acknowledge cannot afford feminine hygeine products are not all
unemployed.
I don't acknowledge it you dimwit. I was *obviously* being sarcastic when I say that somebody cannot afford $1 a day.
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>wrote:
wrote:
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 20:05:23 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:30:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 16:46:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net>
wrote:
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net>
increase.
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland
people to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for
meddling politicians and their agendas.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that
generating
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income
cities.services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie
timescales tohttp://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and
alreadyrapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level
generatedready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth
and/orthrough increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing
**extranew sources will provide this increase if not on the back of
them?and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support
ance(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch
evenlocal and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an
joy-riding on?better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now
home
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not
over-leveragedowners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime >> >> >> >> minister more concerned about protecting recklessly
roofowners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a
thatover one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solution
anyprovides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a start. >> >> >> >The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly make
qualifications and over their working life earn a far higher premium than the cost of their loans.saving difficult,
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with
demonstrate a higher income with the qualification will do.
Given that we haven't had student loans for a lifetime that is sheer
wishful thinking on your part.
Don't need to over a lifetime, dummy. Long enough to pay off the debt and
anyway. Stop wasting time with your senseless wittering.I meant a working lifetime - sorry for not making that clear. That
It makes no difference - a working lifetime was the example calculated
degree here against the median student loan:certainly used to be the case, but we don't know whether that will
continue in future - and statistics cannot predict the future. We have
not had the experience of both high student loans and as high a level
of house prices relative to incomes.
DPF presents the StatisticsNZ sourced numbers for income with/without a
degrees will continue to earn more than those without.http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/11/is_13300_a_good_investment_for_a_degree.html
No need for wishful thinking - the numbers tell the story.
As I said above, statistics can only measure what has happened in the
past.
And what happens in the past will happen again in the future. People with
to
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an obstacle
when it’sregular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home
othertheir period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Others
resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling used >> >> >> pads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and
"embarrassed" then they just need to get the fuck over that.Which is exactly the point. It is embarrassing for girls that cannotmaterials—putting them at risk of infection and sickness.”
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.
For those that have enough to pay, yes. Apparently if you are poor you >> >> can't afford some things - whodathunkit!
It's all less than a cup of coffee you twit:
http://www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/catalog/health-beauty/feminine-care
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgirls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items
Yeah I'm sure they can't afford $5 one week a month.
Oh stop being stupid. Of course they can afford $5 and if they are
that from some other less important spend. We have one of the most generous benefit systems after all.afford modern products - using rags as was the experience of women
until the 1960's/1970s - they are difficult to deal with and they
smell -making many young people embarrassed enough to not attend
school. Most schools apparently now provide such products through the
schol office, but even that is embarrassing for some girls. The
relevant income is of course the family income, and there are already
significant pressures on parents of secondary school age children, to
the extent that school trips are being curtailed due to lack of funds
/ lack of ability of parents to provide for the costs.
Blah blah blah. It's five fucking dollars. Don't tell me they can't save
think you're a bot.
So your acnowledgement of the problem is appreciated - the staff of
girl's schools will of course have even greater certainty than your
just being sure.
You really are too thick to read, aren't you? No wonder people sometimes
to
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also for
university students who typically don’t have much money. “Some >> >> >> university students can’t afford to take public transport or have
andskip meals when it’s their period so they have money to buy pads
getting by with a little care and effort.tampons.”
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and
indeed healthy for society.
There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and
to get buy. Students are not unemployed you dimwit.What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?
I'd say about 3-4%.
It is unfortunately higher than that at present - we have unemployment
higher than that level
Unemployment is not the same thing as those who are not quite smart enough
say that somebody cannot afford $1 a day., and the parents of some of the girls that you
acknowledge cannot afford feminine hygeine products are not all
unemployed.
I don't acknowledge it you dimwit. I was *obviously* being sarcastic when I
Here is an example - your sarcasm was just telling the truth the
government would rather not be heard: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11685067
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 08:07:08 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:even
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 20:05:23 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:30:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 16:46:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling politicians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating
services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales to
rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already
ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth generated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or
new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra
and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them?
(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance
local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an
say that somebody cannot afford $1 a day.I meant a working lifetime - sorry for not making that clear. Thatbetter bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on?
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home
owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime >> >> >> >> >> minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged
owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof
over one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solution that
provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a start. >> >> >> >> >The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly make any
saving difficult,
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with qualifications and over their working life earn a far higher premium than the cost of their loans.
Given that we haven't had student loans for a lifetime that is sheer >> >> >> wishful thinking on your part.
Don't need to over a lifetime, dummy. Long enough to pay off the debt and demonstrate a higher income with the qualification will do.
It makes no difference - a working lifetime was the example calculated anyway. Stop wasting time with your senseless wittering.
certainly used to be the case, but we don't know whether that will
continue in future - and statistics cannot predict the future. We have
not had the experience of both high student loans and as high a level
of house prices relative to incomes.
DPF presents the StatisticsNZ sourced numbers for income with/without a degree here against the median student loan:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/11/is_13300_a_good_investment_for_a_degree.html
No need for wishful thinking - the numbers tell the story.
As I said above, statistics can only measure what has happened in the
past.
And what happens in the past will happen again in the future. People with degrees will continue to earn more than those without.
Which is exactly the point. It is embarrassing for girls that cannot
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an obstacle to >> >> >> >> regular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home when it’s
their period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Others >> >> >> >> resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling used >> >> >> >> pads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and other
materials—putting them at risk of infection and sickness.”
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.
For those that have enough to pay, yes. Apparently if you are poor you >> >> >> can't afford some things - whodathunkit!
It's all less than a cup of coffee you twit:
http://www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/catalog/health-beauty/feminine-care
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgirls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items
Yeah I'm sure they can't afford $5 one week a month.
Oh stop being stupid. Of course they can afford $5 and if they are "embarrassed" then they just need to get the fuck over that.
afford modern products - using rags as was the experience of women
until the 1960's/1970s - they are difficult to deal with and they
smell -making many young people embarrassed enough to not attend
school. Most schools apparently now provide such products through the
schol office, but even that is embarrassing for some girls. The
relevant income is of course the family income, and there are already
significant pressures on parents of secondary school age children, to
the extent that school trips are being curtailed due to lack of funds
/ lack of ability of parents to provide for the costs.
Blah blah blah. It's five fucking dollars. Don't tell me they can't save that from some other less important spend. We have one of the most generous benefit systems after all.
So your acnowledgement of the problem is appreciated - the staff of
girl's schools will of course have even greater certainty than your
just being sure.
You really are too thick to read, aren't you? No wonder people sometimes think you're a bot.
What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also for >> >> >> >> university students who typically don’t have much money. “Some
university students can’t afford to take public transport or have to
skip meals when it’s their period so they have money to buy pads and
tampons.”
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and getting by with a little care and effort.
There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and indeed healthy for society.
I'd say about 3-4%.
It is unfortunately higher than that at present - we have unemployment
higher than that level
Unemployment is not the same thing as those who are not quite smart enough to get buy. Students are not unemployed you dimwit.
, and the parents of some of the girls that you
acknowledge cannot afford feminine hygeine products are not all
unemployed.
I don't acknowledge it you dimwit. I was *obviously* being sarcastic when I
$120/month for phone and internet? Geez I can see why she can't get by on >$60k a year pre-tax income!
Here is an example - your sarcasm was just telling the truth the
government would rather not be heard:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11685067
You cite a story that has no relevance to this thread. No talk there of difficulty with costs of feminine hygiene items. She clearly needs some good advice about her budget though. $300 a *week* for travel and insurance? $360 a month for power and water?
Are you *trying* to look stupid?Personal abuse again - the refuge of the desperate. Eyes wide shut
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 14:03:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com><johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 08:07:08 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 20:05:23 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:30:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 16:46:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
wrote:wrote:
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net>
wrote:
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net>
increase.
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland
people to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for
meddling politicians and their agendas.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that
generating
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income
cities.services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie
timescales tohttp://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and
alreadyrapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level
generatedready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth
and/orthrough increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing
**extranew sources will provide this increase if not on the back of
them?and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support
ance(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch
an evenlocal and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as
joy-riding on?better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now
home
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not
primeowners. Why would this change significantly when - with a
over-leveragedminister more concerned about protecting recklessly
'a roofowners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with
solution thatover one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a
start.provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a
make anyThe model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly
qualifications and over their working life earn a far higher premium than the cost of their loans.saving difficult,
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with
and demonstrate a higher income with the qualification will do.
Given that we haven't had student loans for a lifetime that is sheer >> >> >> wishful thinking on your part.
Don't need to over a lifetime, dummy. Long enough to pay off the debt
anyway. Stop wasting time with your senseless wittering.I meant a working lifetime - sorry for not making that clear. That
It makes no difference - a working lifetime was the example calculated
a degree here against the median student loan:
certainly used to be the case, but we don't know whether that will
continue in future - and statistics cannot predict the future. We have >> >> not had the experience of both high student loans and as high a level >> >> of house prices relative to incomes.
DPF presents the StatisticsNZ sourced numbers for income with/without
degrees will continue to earn more than those without.http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/11/is_13300_a_good_investment_for_a_degree.html
No need for wishful thinking - the numbers tell the story.
As I said above, statistics can only measure what has happened in the >> >> past.
And what happens in the past will happen again in the future. People with
obstacle to
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an
when it’sregular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home
usedtheir period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Others >> >> >> >> resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling
otherpads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and
youmaterials—putting them at risk of infection and sickness.”
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.
For those that have enough to pay, yes. Apparently if you are poor
"embarrassed" then they just need to get the fuck over that.Which is exactly the point. It is embarrassing for girls that cannotcan't afford some things - whodathunkit!
It's all less than a cup of coffee you twit:
http://www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/catalog/health-beauty/feminine-care >> >> >
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgirls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items
Yeah I'm sure they can't afford $5 one week a month.
Oh stop being stupid. Of course they can afford $5 and if they are
that from some other less important spend. We have one of the most generous benefit systems after all.
afford modern products - using rags as was the experience of women
until the 1960's/1970s - they are difficult to deal with and they
smell -making many young people embarrassed enough to not attend
school. Most schools apparently now provide such products through the >> >> schol office, but even that is embarrassing for some girls. The
relevant income is of course the family income, and there are already >> >> significant pressures on parents of secondary school age children, to >> >> the extent that school trips are being curtailed due to lack of funds >> >> / lack of ability of parents to provide for the costs.
Blah blah blah. It's five fucking dollars. Don't tell me they can't save
think you're a bot.
So your acnowledgement of the problem is appreciated - the staff of
girl's schools will of course have even greater certainty than your
just being sure.
You really are too thick to read, aren't you? No wonder people sometimes
“Some
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also for >> >> >> >> university students who typically don’t have much money.
have touniversity students can’t afford to take public transport or
pads andskip meals when it’s their period so they have money to buy
getting by with a little care and effort.tampons.”
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and
indeed healthy for society.
There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and
enough to get buy. Students are not unemployed you dimwit.What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?
I'd say about 3-4%.
It is unfortunately higher than that at present - we have unemployment >> >> higher than that level
Unemployment is not the same thing as those who are not quite smart
I say that somebody cannot afford $1 a day.
, and the parents of some of the girls that you
acknowledge cannot afford feminine hygeine products are not all
unemployed.
I don't acknowledge it you dimwit. I was *obviously* being sarcastic when
difficulty with costs of feminine hygiene items. She clearly needs some good advice about her budget though. $300 a *week* for travel and insurance? $360 a month for power and
Here is an example - your sarcasm was just telling the truth the
government would rather not be heard:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11685067
You cite a story that has no relevance to this thread. No talk there of
How would you get phone/internet/mobile lower, JohnO?
Travel depends on where you live and work - the costs don't look
unreasonable for a working mother
Power and water not unreasonable either for a mother and three girls.
She will have gone through a budgetting assessment to get the Accom supplement and child support - where have WINZ failed, JohnO?
Are you *trying* to look stupid?Personal abuse again - the refuge of the desperate. Eyes wide shut
again for you, JohnO?
After all, this is the "brighter future" we were promised back in
2008, isn't it?
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 14:03:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 08:07:08 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 20:05:23 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:30:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote:
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 16:46:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), JohnO
<johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net>
wrote:
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor
<user1@example.net> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland >>> >> >> >> >>>> increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for
people to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing. >>> >> >> >> >>>>
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that
meddling politicians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower
income generating services will become scarce for
Aucklanders. Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie
cities.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and
timescales to rapidly increase the Auckland area
infrastructure to a level already ready and capable of
servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth
generated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what
existing and/or new sources will provide this increase if
not on the back of **extra and new** inverstment and
extended infrastructure to support them? (chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what
ch ance local and Chinese property speculators who would see >>> >> >> >> >> bonds as an even better bet than the speculative gravy train >>> >> >> >> >> they're now joy-riding on?
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators,
not home
owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a
prime minister more concerned about protecting recklessly
over-leveraged owners - houses are now primarily a tradable
commodity, with 'a roof over one's head' coming a poor
second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a
solution that provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a
start. The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly
make any saving difficult,
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with
qualifications and over their working life earn a far higher
premium than the cost of their loans.
Given that we haven't had student loans for a lifetime that is
sheer wishful thinking on your part.
Don't need to over a lifetime, dummy. Long enough to pay off the
debt and demonstrate a higher income with the qualification will do. >>> >> I meant a working lifetime - sorry for not making that clear. That
It makes no difference - a working lifetime was the example calculated
anyway. Stop wasting time with your senseless wittering.
certainly used to be the case, but we don't know whether that will
continue in future - and statistics cannot predict the future. We
have not had the experience of both high student loans and as high a
level of house prices relative to incomes.
DPF presents the StatisticsNZ sourced numbers for income
with/without a degree here against the median student loan:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/11/is_13300_a_good_investment_for_a_degree.html >>> >> >
No need for wishful thinking - the numbers tell the story.
As I said above, statistics can only measure what has happened in the >>> >> past.
And what happens in the past will happen again in the future. People
with degrees will continue to earn more than those without.
Which is exactly the point. It is embarrassing for girls that cannot
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an
obstacle to
regular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home
when itÂ’s their period because they cannot afford sanitary
products. Others resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures
such as recycling used pads or improvising pads from old
clothes, rags, newspapers and other materials—putting them at
risk of infection and sickness.”
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.
For those that have enough to pay, yes. Apparently if you are poor >>> >> >> you can't afford some things - whodathunkit!
It's all less than a cup of coffee you twit:
http://www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/catalog/health-beauty/feminine-care >>> >> >
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgirls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items
Yeah I'm sure they can't afford $5 one week a month.
Oh stop being stupid. Of course they can afford $5 and if they are
"embarrassed" then they just need to get the fuck over that.
afford modern products - using rags as was the experience of women
until the 1960's/1970s - they are difficult to deal with and they
smell -making many young people embarrassed enough to not attend
school. Most schools apparently now provide such products through the >>> >> schol office, but even that is embarrassing for some girls. The
relevant income is of course the family income, and there are already >>> >> significant pressures on parents of secondary school age children, to >>> >> the extent that school trips are being curtailed due to lack of funds >>> >> / lack of ability of parents to provide for the costs.
Blah blah blah. It's five fucking dollars. Don't tell me they can't
save that from some other less important spend. We have one of the most >>> >generous benefit systems after all.
So your acnowledgement of the problem is appreciated - the staff of
girl's schools will of course have even greater certainty than your
just being sure.
You really are too thick to read, aren't you? No wonder people
sometimes think you're a bot.
What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also
for university students who typically donÂ’t have much money.
“Some university students can’t afford to take public transport >>> >> >> >> or have to skip meals when it’s their period so they have money >>> >> >> >> to buy pads and tampons.”
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and
getting by with a little care and effort.
There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and
indeed healthy for society.
I'd say about 3-4%.
It is unfortunately higher than that at present - we have
unemployment higher than that level
Unemployment is not the same thing as those who are not quite smart
enough to get buy. Students are not unemployed you dimwit.
, and the parents of some of the girls that you
acknowledge cannot afford feminine hygeine products are not all
unemployed.
I don't acknowledge it you dimwit. I was *obviously* being sarcastic
when I say that somebody cannot afford $1 a day.
Here is an example - your sarcasm was just telling the truth the
government would rather not be heard:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11685067
You cite a story that has no relevance to this thread. No talk there of >>difficulty with costs of feminine hygiene items. She clearly needs some >>good advice about her budget though. $300 a *week* for travel and >>insurance? $360 a month for power and water? $120/month for phone and >>internet? Geez I can see why she can't get by on >$60k a year pre-tax >>income!
How would you get phone/internet/mobile lower, JohnO?
Travel depends on where you live and work - the costs don't look
unreasonable for a working mother
Power and water not unreasonable either for a mother and three girls.
She will have gone through a budgetting assessment to get the Accom supplement and child support - where have WINZ failed, JohnO?
Are you *trying* to look stupid?Personal abuse again - the refuge of the desperate. Eyes wide shut
again for you, JohnO?
After all, this is the "brighter future" we were promised back in
2008, isn't it?
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 08:07:08 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>ance
wrote:
=20
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 20:05:23 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:30:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
=20
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 16:46:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.co= >m>
wrote:
=20
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> w= >rote:
=20
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net= >> wrote:
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland = >increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for p= >eople to move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that med= >dling politicians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower incom= >e generating
services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie c= >ities.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bu= >st-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749= >e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and time= >scales to
rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level = >already
ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth gene= >rated
through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existin= >g and/or
new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of = >**extra
and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support = >them?
(chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch=
an evenlocal and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as=
homebetter bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-r= >iding on?
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not=
and demonstrate a higher income with the qualification will do.=20=20owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a pr= >ime
minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leve= >raged
owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with = >'a roof
over one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solu= >tion that=20
provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a star= >t.
The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly ma= >ke any
saving difficult,=20
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with qualif= >ications and over their working life earn a far higher premium than the cos= >t of their loans.
Given that we haven't had student loans for a lifetime that is shee= >r
wishful thinking on your part.=20
Don't need to over a lifetime, dummy. Long enough to pay off the debt=
a degree here against the median student loan:I meant a working lifetime - sorry for not making that clear. That
It makes no difference - a working lifetime was the example calculated a= >nyway. Stop wasting time with your senseless wittering.
certainly used to be the case, but we don't know whether that will
continue in future - and statistics cannot predict the future. We have
not had the experience of both high student loans and as high a level
of house prices relative to incomes.=20
=20
DPF presents the StatisticsNZ sourced numbers for income with/without=
that from some other less important spend. We have one of the most generou=http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/11/is_13300_a_good_investment_for_a_de= >gree.html=20
No need for wishful thinking - the numbers tell the story.
As I said above, statistics can only measure what has happened in the
past.
And what happens in the past will happen again in the future. People wit= >h degrees will continue to earn more than those without.=20
=20
Which is exactly the point. It is embarrassing for girls that cannot=20
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
=E2=80=9CA lack of sanitary products has been identified as an = >obstacle to
regular school attendance,=E2=80=9D says Wall. =E2=80=9CSome gir= >ls stay home when it=E2=80=99s
their period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Other= >s
resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling us= >ed
pads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and = >other
materials=E2=80=94putting them at risk of infection and sickness= >.=E2=80=9D
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.=20
For those that have enough to pay, yes. Apparently if you are poor = >you
can't afford some things - whodathunkit!
It's all less than a cup of coffee you twit:
http://www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/catalog/health-beauty/feminine-care
=20
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgir= >ls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items
Yeah I'm sure they can't afford $5 one week a month.
Oh stop being stupid. Of course they can afford $5 and if they are "emba= >rrassed" then they just need to get the fuck over that.
afford modern products - using rags as was the experience of women
until the 1960's/1970s - they are difficult to deal with and they
smell -making many young people embarrassed enough to not attend
school. Most schools apparently now provide such products through the
schol office, but even that is embarrassing for some girls. The
relevant income is of course the family income, and there are already
significant pressures on parents of secondary school age children, to
the extent that school trips are being curtailed due to lack of funds
/ lack of ability of parents to provide for the costs.=20
Blah blah blah. It's five fucking dollars. Don't tell me they can't save=
s benefit systems after all.
think you're a bot.
=20
So your acnowledgement of the problem is appreciated - the staff of
girl's schools will of course have even greater certainty than your
just being sure.=20
You really are too thick to read, aren't you? No wonder people sometimes=
=E2=80=9CSome
=20
=20
=20
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also fo= >r
university students who typically don=E2=80=99t have much money.=
=20=20What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?university students can=E2=80=99t afford to take public transpor= >t or have to
skip meals when it=E2=80=99s their period so they have money to = >buy pads and
tampons.=E2=80=9D
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and ge= >tting by with a little care and effort.
There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and i= >ndeed healthy for society.
I'd say about 3-4%.
It is unfortunately higher than that at present - we have unemployment
higher than that level
Unemployment is not the same thing as those who are not quite smart enou= >gh to get buy. Students are not unemployed you dimwit.
, and the parents of some of the girls that you
acknowledge cannot afford feminine hygeine products are not all
unemployed.
I don't acknowledge it you dimwit. I was *obviously* being sarcastic whe= >n I say that somebody cannot afford $1 a day.
Here is an example - your sarcasm was just telling the truth the
government would rather not be heard:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=3D1&objectid=3D1168506= >7
You cite a story that has no relevance to this thread. No talk there of dif= >ficulty with costs of feminine hygiene items. She clearly needs some good a= >dvice about her budget though. $300 a *week* for travel and insurance? $360=
a month for power and water? $120/month for phone and internet? Geez I can= see why she can't get by on >$60k a year pre-tax income!=20
Are you *trying* to look stupid?
Internet access is a luxury. So is a mobile.
On 3/08/2016 3:07 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Internet access is a luxury. So is a mobile.
No its not
A luxury is by definition an economic good or service for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises.
Internet and phones are utilities used by the majority of the population.
Its probably the best way of getting people into employment and education.
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:07:27 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
It would mean a failure of the market.
People want to live and work in Auckland then they have to pay the
'going rate'...
The fat heifer seems to think that cutting house values in half is going
to solve something..
Her knowledge of finances is in line with any other subject she waffles
on about
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/enableme/news/article.cfm?c_id=1504103&objectid=11681039
I have no idea whether Hannah is fat or slim - does it make any
difference?
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>move to other parts of NZ. This is a good thing.
wrote:
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 20:05:23 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:30:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 30 July 2016 16:46:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Friday, 29 July 2016 13:12:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:08:26 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 28/07/2016 5:51 p.m., Newsman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:25:34 +1200, victor <user1@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 28/07/2016 12:52 p.m., JohnO wrote:
Simple answer: the number of people flooding into Auckland increase.
The high price of housing in Auckland is an incentive for people to
I meant a working lifetime - sorry for not making that clear. That
Leave the market alone - it does a much better job that meddling politicians and their agendas.
Aucklanders are house rich income poor. It means lower income generating
services will become scarce for Aucklanders.
Aged care workers, cleaners etc.
The market is skewed by zoning.
Unitary plan might fix that.
Next stop is the apartment glut as Auckland follows Aussie cities. >>>>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/boom-to-bust-how-many-is-too-many-apartments-for-our-big-cities/news-story/8c15498749e077b97bb3aeee16e67e6d
Presumably the Plan includes immediate upfront costs and timescales to
rapidly increase the Auckland area infrastructure to a level already >>>>>>>>> ready and capable of servicing future population growth?
So, then, how financed? From increased national wealth generated >>>>>>>>> through increased **real productivity?** If so, what existing and/or >>>>>>>>> new sources will provide this increase if not on the back of **extra >>>>>>>>> and new** inverstment and extended infrastructure to support them? >>>>>>>>> (chicken and egg.)
Perhaps AKL and/or Government bonds? Who would buy? what ch ance >>>>>>>>> local and Chinese property speculators who would see bonds as an even >>>>>>>>> better bet than the speculative gravy train they're now joy-riding on?
Remember, 60% of mortgage loans today are to speculators, not home >>>>>>>>> owners. Why would this change significantly when - with a prime >>>>>>>>> minister more concerned about protecting recklessly over-leveraged >>>>>>>>> owners - houses are now primarily a tradable commodity, with 'a roof >>>>>>>>> over one's head' coming a poor second?
Yeah we aren't getting any traction from politicians for a solution that
provides enough future homes.
Housing associations for higher density housing would be a start. >>>>>>>> The model works for aged housing providers.
Meanwhile this just nails it
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-rent-rage
That is a good summary. Student loans and low wages certainly make any >>>>>>> saving difficult,
Crap. People who use their student loans wisely end up with qualifications and over their working life earn a far higher premium than the cost of their loans.
Given that we haven't had student loans for a lifetime that is sheer >>>>> wishful thinking on your part.
Don't need to over a lifetime, dummy. Long enough to pay off the debt and demonstrate a higher income with the qualification will do.
It makes no difference - a working lifetime was the example calculated anyway. Stop wasting time with your senseless wittering.
certainly used to be the case, but we don't know whether that will
continue in future - and statistics cannot predict the future. We have
not had the experience of both high student loans and as high a level
of house prices relative to incomes.
DPF presents the StatisticsNZ sourced numbers for income with/without a degree here against the median student loan:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/11/is_13300_a_good_investment_for_a_degree.html
No need for wishful thinking - the numbers tell the story.
As I said above, statistics can only measure what has happened in the
past.
And what happens in the past will happen again in the future. People with degrees will continue to earn more than those without.
Which is exactly the point. It is embarrassing for girls that cannot
but many established families are struggling as
well, with effects such as this:
http://www.foodbank.org.nz/products/womens-hygiene-bundle
“A lack of sanitary products has been identified as an obstacle to >>>>>>> regular school attendance,” says Wall. “Some girls stay home when it’s >>>>>>> their period because they cannot afford sanitary products. Others >>>>>>> resort to makeshift and unhygienic measures such as recycling used >>>>>>> pads or improvising pads from old clothes, rags, newspapers and other >>>>>>> materials—putting them at risk of infection and sickness.”
That's crap. Fem hygiene products are cheap.
For those that have enough to pay, yes. Apparently if you are poor you >>>>> can't afford some things - whodathunkit!
It's all less than a cup of coffee you twit:
http://www.thewarehouse.co.nz/red/catalog/health-beauty/feminine-care
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/30/new-zealand-schoolgirls-skip-class-because-they-cant-afford-sanitary-items
Yeah I'm sure they can't afford $5 one week a month.
Oh stop being stupid. Of course they can afford $5 and if they are "embarrassed" then they just need to get the fuck over that.
afford modern products - using rags as was the experience of women
until the 1960's/1970s - they are difficult to deal with and they
smell -making many young people embarrassed enough to not attend
school. Most schools apparently now provide such products through the
schol office, but even that is embarrassing for some girls. The
relevant income is of course the family income, and there are already
significant pressures on parents of secondary school age children, to
the extent that school trips are being curtailed due to lack of funds
/ lack of ability of parents to provide for the costs.
Blah blah blah. It's five fucking dollars. Don't tell me they can't save that from some other less important spend. We have one of the most generous benefit systems after all.
So your acnowledgement of the problem is appreciated - the staff of
girl's schools will of course have even greater certainty than your
just being sure.
You really are too thick to read, aren't you? No wonder people sometimes think you're a bot.
What percentage do you think is OK then, JohnO?
This is not only a problem for high school students, but also for >>>>>>> university students who typically don’t have much money. “Some
university students can’t afford to take public transport or have to >>>>>>> skip meals when it’s their period so they have money to buy pads and >>>>>>> tampons.”
Yet hundreds of thousands of students are in tertiary study and getting by with a little care and effort.
There's always a percentage who don't manage. This is normal and indeed healthy for society.
I'd say about 3-4%.
It is unfortunately higher than that at present - we have unemployment
higher than that level
Unemployment is not the same thing as those who are not quite smart enough to get buy. Students are not unemployed you dimwit.
, and the parents of some of the girls that you
acknowledge cannot afford feminine hygeine products are not all
unemployed.
I don't acknowledge it you dimwit. I was *obviously* being sarcastic when I say that somebody cannot afford $1 a day.
Here is an example - your sarcasm was just telling the truth the
government would rather not be heard: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11685067
On 3/08/2016 3:07 p.m., Allistar wrote:
Internet access is a luxury. So is a mobile.
No its not
A luxury is by definition an economic good or service for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises.
Internet and phones are utilities used by the majority of the population.
Its probably the best way of getting people into employment and education.
I'd like to know why liebor aren't bemoaning the fact that
houses in Auckland aren't the same price as they were in 1980..
And what other crazies is the large green going to come up with?You saying Richies great and glorious Liebor council have screwed up? Whodathought?
Auckland house prices are determined by the market, the cost of land,
the price of materials, a left leaning council unwilling to issue
building permits and the cost of labour exacerbated by
the H&S regulations
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 189:26:50 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,684 |