100%, and it’s not clear there’s any solution to that, because voters will punish anyone who tries to fix it.
The biggest reason for nigh house prices (particularly relative to incomes) is the affordability of mortgage payments as a result of low interest rates. Interest rates may have to be raised to control inflation.
It is a mistake to think of supply vs demand as "how many people want a house" vs "how many houses are there". Both supply and demand are curves against price. Interest rates shift the demand curve. As the supply curve is inelastic it has an even greater impact in the short term
Any attempt to fix the housing situation will need to provide owners, not just with housing, but with a passable income for 40+ years.
So, the actual discussion is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=747X0M7Keyw
And this discussion is hard because to just maintain current pension levels young people will need to be a LOT more productive (ie. work more, and keep less of the fruits of their labour) ... and if we're going to assign blame, the reason is that the pensioners refused to have enough kids. It's not really the kids' fault.
We all know what's going to happen too, in general. Some economic upheaval, some drastic event will create enormous disruption and then, finally, it will be politically acceptable to make the hard choice.
I thought they did have enough kids but that the next generation(s) need to breed faster.
In New Zealand and Australia ~30% of population were born in another country. I suspect our government will try and fix the working-age population hole by more immigration? New Zealand is building houses (necessary when increasing population by 50% through immigration). You can see both higher density and new suburban growth (replacing farmland) in my city of Christchurch.
It is silly to plan your retirement by looking at the situation right now. The economics of demographics will require grim changes. I'm sceptical of retirement funding, superannuation, and house sales. Even preppers seem like they have some sense. There's little information on potential solutions - everything is based on the presumption that decades away will be just like it is today.
New Zealand property market is weird: https://www.imf.org/external/research/housing/
This is doom talk. Of course it isn't. One thing is for sure: you are going to be responsible for your own retirement, because superannuation is only meant to drive up house prices and will collapse along with house prices ... "eventually". It may not be clear when exactly this will happen, but of course in Australia it will have to happen near 2054 (when Australia's population growth will go into reverse until at least 2084).
Perhaps easier to say in Australia: Australia seems to be doing better than many countries so perhaps you don't recognise the problem. Japan and Italy already have some ~$0 houses due to demographics. Children from New Zealand go overseas so demographics in NZ are worse than Australia. An article[1] this morning asked: "Have you seriously considered moving to Australia in the last year?" 37% said YES (and 40% of those have 'looked into it').
This thread is started by nly in London who clearly hasn't retired yet:
My mortgage runs until I'm 70 and I, like most owners now, are entirely dependent on the housing casino game continuing. I have to refinance every 5 years, so if rates spike I'm also screwed.
And here's a proper doom animation for Korea: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufmu1WD2TSk
Try to ignore the bullshit in both but do attend to the facts.
I'm over a decade away from retirement in New Zealand, but all the signals I see here are pointing towards the country taxation base not being able to afford retirees in the future. I haven't considered Australia yet since I assume Oz won't escape the demographic wall, and if there is a future problem then being a kiwi in Oz could become unpleasant.
The narrative a year ago was that we should invest a good proportion of retirement savings into the US stock market. Recent events indicate that might not be an effective long term strategy.
A rental property was the traditional investment vehicle goal for many New Zealanders - but I've been becoming more sceptical about that idea (even though I've seen the past success).
I've no idea what the solution is, but I'm certain that the strategy that worked for my parents won't work for me.
[1] https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/360652106/kiwis-living-london...
A sibling post has stats from 15 years ago but a lot has changed since then. My gut feeling is that more people are struggling to buy than to pay back mortgages but I have no stats to back that up.
Almost every country has more home owners than renters, so no. In USA its 65%.
"A slave dreams not of freedom, but of his own slaves."
I wish we had specific words for this type of hypocrisy. Seeing people in wealthy USA complain about people relatively wealthier than them, rather than looking at their own wealth versus the poor in other countries. Obviously the poor in the USA aren't living the life of Reilly, but they're far beyond the wealth of the poor in India. How wealthy were the 99% Occupy Wall Street protesters?
You can't make people see what they don't want to.
That’s not the same as the number of voters, obviously, but I’m not sure it’s a safe assumption, even before it gets into the actual voting dynamics from FPTP… there’s also presumably a lot of renters with their eyes on Mom and Dad’s home as an inheritance.
Of course it won't be as valuable as an asset, but assuming they are primarily using it as a house rather then an asset then lower housing prices may not significantly affect their voting behaviour.
Unlikely unless they’re an only child