4 ms·

> at the expense of the minority, of course That minority is slowly becoming a majority. Home ownership in NZ is the lowest ever. It’s down to like 60-65%. The

> at the expense of the minority, of course That minority is slowly becoming a majority. Home ownership in NZ is the lowest ever. It’s down to like 60-65%. The market is becoming completely unaffordable. Raising prices is good for high income earners and people who have homes to leverage from. > Additionally, the more a house is "worth" on paper, the more people are willing to invest in it (renovations, keep-up), which is usually a good thing for the economy. People who can barely afford a house cannot renovated it. When a mortgage payment is 2-3 times the cost of renting you don’t have disposable income to renovate. > House prices going down is a good thing for the unhoused population, and it's a bad thing for the homeowners. The ONLY time prices falling is bad for a home owner is when the value of the house is less than what they paid.

maratc 4y ago
> Home ownership in NZ is the lowest ever. It’s down to like 60-65%. If I read it right, the homeowners outnumber the non-homeowners 2:1 then? This would mean twice as much votes for measures getting prices up than against these measures. > The ONLY time prices falling is bad for a home owner is when the value of the house is less than what they paid. I disagree, not on the question "are prices going up good?" but on the question "do most people like the prices going up?". I think most people who own property want to see their property go up, not down, in price; and I think the majority of the population owns property, and so falls into that group. In other words, I think that on a referendum of whether to get all property up by 50% or down by 30% the people would act in their own self-interest, and the "up" would win.