Hacker News Reader

Comment by smfjaw | Hacker News Reader

Kiwi developer here, we have immigration laws that create a false scarcity of tech workers and low amount of skilled local graduates. Among the teams of developers there's usually only one or two nz born team members with the majority being on working visas or in the process of permanent residency. It may look like a good thing for locals as pay stays high but it brings down the overall efficiency of the country. Saying that we generally trail the US market on these things by 3-6 months and we've had some decent lay offs so the worst may be over for us.

NZ salaries are also pretty laughable, even if you're on $150k you can't really afford to live on your own (even an apartment is a stretch) as housing and living expenses are so high. It's only really good if you're in your early twenties and can find flatmates or live with parents and save.

View on HN

As a NZ developer that a lives in his own apartment with a salary less than $150k, I disagree. Yes, it's expensive and yes, our salaries are lower than our colleagues in some other countries, but it's too much to say that you can't afford to put down a deposit on an apartment after a few years of saving.

I agree. It is not easy to hear a person whose income is triple his country's national median refer to independent living as untenable. Even if only purely from a perspective of "if even they are struggling, then... how is the average person in that country even still alive??".

And if a country has plenty of land, and food, to go around - then for scarcity to become a norm, something(s) must have their hands pretty deep in the cookie jar.

> if even they are struggling, then... how is the average person in that country even still [independently] alive??"

Either they accrued capital already, or borrowing from relatives who did, or they're not living independently. They're sharing accommodation that would be cramped for two among six.

Lifestyles once only necessary for students are now de rigueur for established graduates, with the possible exception of better food.

What about non-graduates - and why do we need that distinction? The few extra years of guided schooling it entails does not deserve to be a lifetime defining difference between the haves and the have-nots.

"You achieved a university degree, so you deserve to be elevated for life" is little different in its entitlement bias than "you achieved house ownership, so you deserve to be elevated for life".

Equality goes beyond such things.

Non-graduates are also suffering, yes. Did I imply they deserved to suffer? If I did that's not the intention.

However, a degree usually requires hard work (being born wealthy does not), and has been widely recognised as the best legal route out of poverty for decades. We are not a communist society and do expect hard work to lead to greater standards of life, on average, even if there are exceptional non-graduates and lazy graduates. If even the best legal route is failing en masse, then we are screwed.

That's true, it's definitely not impossible. It's just relative to other countries we seem to be a bit worse off on the housing front

Which countries? It seems like a lot of the English speaking countries have a housing crisis in major urban centers. Toronto, Dublin, Melbourne, London, Edinburgh, San Francisco, Austin, NYC, etc... All super expensive by the sounds of it. Is Auckland that much different?

Not just English speaking countries: housing affordability is low in most European and developed-Asian countries.

Auckland is pretty bad, but Sydney or Melbourne are worse for affordability (income versus mortgage):

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/least-affordable-cities-to-...

Here's the 2023 version (original reference uses 2019 data): http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf, pages 7-9

New Zealand is an honourable 2nd place and Auckland clocks at 7th with ~11 (median household annual income for median house). The other cities worse off are around 11 as well, with Vancouver at 12 and Sydney at 13. Hong Kong is the usual autist at 18 in its own league

To answer another comment here, Melbourne and Toronto are comparable, London is 20% better off, Austin and Dublin are half that bad, can't even compare

I make less than $150K, am in my late 40s, and live in Auckland. My partner and I own our apartment (well, most of it -- we still have just under $20K left on the mortgage). She works part time, and while we don't have a lavish lifestyle we have enough money for a comfortable life. So, yeah, if you're making $150K or more and can't afford to live on your own (even renting) then you have to take a closer look at where your money's going.

I don't mean to engage in whataboutism, but by saying you're above 40, you suggest you may have bought into your mortgage at the much more affordable times in the past. Did you purchase in the last few years?

Purchased around four years ago. Our rate at the time was around 3%; it's gone up in recent years. That said, for the years leading up to that my partner and I were renting (first in Wellington, then in Auckland). We also have a now nine-year-old son and having kids ain't cheap :-) For some of the time, we were on one salary. Still managed a fairly comfortable life even under those circumstances.

Late 40s, so let's say fairly 47 or so. Which means you purchased around 43.

The housing market is broken (and not just in NZ; I'm a Kiwi living in London). In the 90s the outside London average first time buyer age was 29, now it's 33.4 and steadily increasing.

But the real kicker is; how did you get your deposit? Scrimping and saving? Never have house prices been such a high multiple of the average salary. The difference now between the haves and have nots are those whose parents can drop a 30-50kgbp deposit for each of their children and those children who inherit a stake in properties worth around 300-1000kgbp from deceased grandparents.

All of the "news" around properties is through the eyes of home owners and not prospective buyers. There are more people cheering when prices go up and booing when prices go down than vice versa, even when their house is worth many times more than the original price adjusted for inflation.

I had a Kiwi mate stay with me for a holiday recently (also late 40s) and in his mind the high house prices/ridiculous value increase made sense to him because "I pay my rates the whole time I own the house therefore the value should go up". I tried to explain that rates (known as council tax in the UK) were a _service_ just like paying your electricity bill but it just did not compute; he wasn't interested.

> But the real kicker is; how did you get your deposit? Scrimping and saving?

Pretty much -- more saving then scrimping. My parents and my partner's parents didn't help us, mainly because they couldn't. And we didn't expect them to. And, no, we didn't have other benevolent relatives or money magically appearing in our bank accounts. If only ... Also were also able to use some of our KiwiSavers (government retirement savings plan for those of you outside of NZ) to take advantage of the first home buyer's scheme.

Overall, though, for us it was a matter of living modestly, paying our bills, and remembering to pay ourselves. Not that we didn't/don't indulge from time to time -- pay a visit to our favourite local cafes and we take the occasional trip here and there.

I'm sure this all would have been a bit easier if I was making $150K or more annually (or even if my partner was making $20K or so more a year). But we're not unique or special or anything like that. I know several people in a situation like mine who are doing or have done the same thing.

Aussie here. Similar, we’re a bit higher but it’s about the same.

I will highlight one difference between the US and Oceania - our currencies are at least a third less than the USD. So $150k in NZ is probably closer to $100k and in Aus it’s $110k.

Yea, I thinking of jumping the ditch in the next year. Housing is ridiculous here in nz, until that gets fixed it's not a very attractive place to live if you're trying to build wealth

Don’t come to Australia for better/cheaper housing. We have the triple threat of a runaway housing market, shoddy developers, and weaponised NIMBYs; we have a fledgling homelessness crisis and impotent leadership, so it’s not going to get better soon.

We've got that and more!

Take anything bad about Australia and it's about 20-100% worse in NZ.

I can't think of a single improvement. Look at migration patterns, people are voting with their feet. NZ is the one with the incompetent government.

> even if you're on $150k you can't really afford to live on your own (even an apartment is a stretch) as housing and living expenses are so high

That's pretty standard outside the USA too.

There is no city in America where a single individual cannot afford a comfortable lifestyle in a nice neighborhood on a $150k salary. is this not true in most of Europe? I feel like most of my European friends make well south of $150k and do just fine.

NZD is 0.6 USD or so, 150K NZD is about 90K USD, according to HUD, such an income for a single person is between Very Low Income (65K) and Low Income (104K) in San Francisco. You can explore income limits here https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html

I used to work in public housing so I know all about income limits and how they are determined by the average income of the specific region and household size. When talking about average income in ridiculous high income areas, "below average" can still be a very livable salary.

It very well may be very livable but I don't see how it can be "a comfortable lifestyle in a nice neighborhood". With the standard 30% of gross income limit you can rent at $2250/m, which limits you to tiny apartments in certain neighborhoods.

Only in the Anglo countries. Other countries build enough housing.

(And it's not true in the US, only some coastal regions.)

I know people in their 20s in Sweden, Italy, Singapore, Greece and they're all struggling and/or living with their parents. The main point though was that developers dont earn loads in those countries.

True for Singapore - rent here is very expensive, could be 50% or more of monthly salary for younglings.

Singles in their 20's do not qualify for govt subsidised housing (HDB). Rents here in Singapore range for 3k + for a basic apartment, 4k for a basic Condo apartment. Salary averages are about 6 - 9k (gross) for developers in that experience / age range

To expand on the terminology.

Apartments are govt provided public housing with a 99 year lease. Most of the population live in these. Only citizens and PR holders are allowed to purchase one per household.

Condos are gated compounds built by private developers, some have a 99 year lease too. These are for the rich. You can own as many as you like.

You may only own one or the other.

context matters though - society expects you to not rent, and will provide for you if you stick to its norms. If you are a foreigner, or don’t want to marry Singapore is not for younglings.

80% of housing is government subsidized ownership for citizen couples (or singles after 35). It’s brutal but philosophically aligned with the ‘good for the country’ - not enough space for people to be single.

BTO flats are very heavily subsidized and monthly payment will be in the hundreds for people matching the expectations.

Yes, Sweden (Stockholm) at least is similar. I think Italy and Greece's problems are more just that they're poor and underdeveloped, so it's more like poor areas of the US than rich areas. But they don't have nearly the self-defeating housing planning systems of the UK.

I'm told Greece has some interesting housing typologies (polikatoikia):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/the-desig...

The “poor” in the USA are difficult to compare with people in Europe:

  The Poorest 20% of Americans Are Richer on Average Than Most European Nations: https://fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20-of-americans-are-richer-than-most-nations-of-europe/

Singapore as a country is designed that you are a local live with your parents until you marry (BTO.

If you stick to that societal expectation, the country is very affordable as the government will subsidize you a lot.

If you do not or can not, you will pay for it.

On one hand it’s brutal efficient and in many ways necessary (there just ain’t that much space for people to be single) and it’s reflected in immigration policy as well - trying to get PR/green card as a single is very very hard because that’s the only way for the government to seriously affect demographic curve without forcing people to have children.

Singapore is 699km² (may have expanded since I left) with a population of almost 6m not including migrants.

Tokyo is 619km² with a population of almost 10m [0]. And that's not accounting yet for the surrounding population that commutes into Tokyo. During the last census in 2020, Tokyo's daytime population surges to 16m. [1]

The difference between these two cities is that a large portion of Japanese real estate are micro 1~2 bedroom apartments (below 20m²) built specifically for singles and young adults. The SG govt has for years claimed that it doesn't have enough space, in reality they're just want to encourage multi-generational living.

0: https://ieagent.jp/blog/eria/tokyo23population-601355#:~:tex... 1: https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGKKZO62846080T20C22A7EA4000/...

Most cities in the developed world don’t provide the micro apartments of Tokyo. Their codes don’t allow for them.

In Sweden it's expensive in Stockholm, but in most cities it's perfectly fine. The average rent is less than a third of the average salary. In my city you can get a 2-3 bedroom apartment bike distance from the city center for 100k USD and it's one of the bigger cities

If you make equal to a 150k usd salary you can certainly live in a nice neighborhood in Stockholm (capital of Sweden) and a comfortable lifestyle.

There is nowhere in the US that someone with little debt and no major medical issues can’t afford to have their own apartment on $150,000 a year. Even SF and NYC would be no problem.

Yes, but there are places where you're a lot more likely to make $150k.

Are you talking about software developers specifically or all people across all jobs? Which places are you talking about?

What countries build enough housing? In China, they build like crazy but housing is still expensive, even in third tier or worse cities.

I don't know the details of life in NZ, but I live in a highly desirable part of Manhattan and make just north of $150k. I eat out all the time, travel often, and ultimately feel very few financial constraints (aside from not saving as much as I'd like). What in NZ is driving up costs so high that $150k can't sustain a single individual in a nice urban apartment?

I suspect you're in USD and they're in NZD. At the moment, 150NZD = 90USD, 150USD = 250NZD.

Are you single? Do you have room mates? Did you buy several years ago and now have a locked in mortgage at a low rate? I think circumstances change things. I make north of $150k in California, but I'm married and have two kids. It doesn't feel like it goes that far after rent, childcare, groceries, and all your other bills like a car, insurance, utilities, etc.

A single renter who lives alone in a 1-bedroom apartment in lower Manhattan. I previously lived on a slighted smaller salary in a studio apartment in downtown SF (about 5 years ago). I don't have or want children a car or to own a home, which if of course a gargantuan difference in how far $150k will take you.

He's bsing or after extremely desirable places. Even Auckland is affordable for a single on $150k pa.

No BS here. The _average_ house price in Auckland is 1 million dollars. How long does it take to save a 20% deposit on 150k in a HCOL country? And 150k is generally a senior level wage, no one in NZ is starting on 150k

Lol such bs.

Go have a look on real estate sites and tell me you cant find 1/2 bedroom apartments for well under 1 million.

Op is single and clearly not telling the whole story about what he is willing to buy or where he is willing to live.

EDIT: Here did it for you: https://www.barfoot.co.nz/properties/residential/region=auck...

Plenty of places OP could look at if they were serious but they aren't. I'm not saying housing isn't in a bad spot as it definitely needs serious attention as a key (perhaps "THE") political issue. But hyperbole and lies doesn't help anyone or anything.

Outside of Auckland you can do quite well on 150k.

Tech Immigrants outnumbering local techs happens in many countries.

I was doing a job in Australia in the 90s and I remember the ratio there being high. In my job in NZ there was also significant immigrant numbers (although tended to be immigrants from English speaking countries at that time due to NZ immigration laws).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com