Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news some investors are focusing on the positive, others on the negative today.
Firstly the bond market is tanking today, even though the equity markets are holding high. Investors may be sensing that the best of the recovery is behind them and the rapid spread of the delta variant is a reminder that we’re going to have to learn to live with the virus for years to come. But despite this, there are still reasons to be optimistic. Firstly, most of the Q2 GDP reports have been quite good and when ours are released next month, it will likely be too.
Secondly, the US is going to get its big infrastructure deal.
And thirdly the US PMIs for July were really very strong - but not quite as strong as markets expected, which is why some investors are pulling back. However that doesn't alter the real expansions in manufacturing (and this).
European factories are expanding fast too.
It is true that China is in a slowdown, and approaching a stall. But they are the weak one, the outlier. Beijing is eyeing a recovery that is "not solid" and "uneven", blaming global forces, with promises of more stimulus support on the way. It is an admission that is getting almost zero press attention inside China.
Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are all expanding at good rates. Even India is too.
It is Russia and ASEAN countries that are the laggards reporting shrinking factory output, mainly because the delta virus strain has them in a very unfriendly grip.
Separately, Hong Kong reported a recovery in retail sales, partly juiced by some local incentives. But they remain far below pre-pandemic levels; in fact, more than -20% below 2019 levels.
Want to go ad-free? Find out how.
In Australian factories, there are signs the top is being taken off their factory expansions by the recent lockdowns, but both (this and this) report good expansions in July.
But the new rolling lockdowns are taking a toll and quite quickly. The Aussie press may be enamored by the Afterpay deal, but in fact behind the scenes the RBA and the Australian Treasury are dusting off their crisis stimulus playbooks. Everything about the pandemic economic effects has happened fast; the approaching crisis, the official responses, and the V-shaped recovery. Now the impact of the delta strain is happening fast too so the regulatory response needs equal quickness.
There were 207 new community cases in NSW yesterday with 107 not assigned to known clusters, so still going backwards there. Brisbane had entered a three day snap lockdown, but new cases yesterday has seen that extended. Queensland has closed its border with NSW, which is a last-resort action for them.
On Wall Street, the initial opening bounce has faded and they are flat (+0.1%) in early afternoon trade to start the week. Overnight, European markets ended up about +0.5% led again by Paris. Yesterday, Tokyo bounced back strongly with a +1.8% daily rise. Hong Kong chipped in with its own +1.1% rise after a slow start. And Shanghai trumped them all with a +2.0% rise, also after a slow start. The ASX200 ended its Monday session with a +1.3% gain and the NZX50 Capital Index was up +0.9%.
The UST 10yr yield starts today sharply lower again at 1.17% and down another -6 bps overnight. The US 2-10 rate curve is to now at just under +100 bps and much flatter. And their 1-5 curve is also significantly flatter at +58 bps, while their 3m-10 year curve completes the trend at +113 bps. The Australian Govt ten year benchmark rate starts today at 1.15% and down another -4 bps. The China Govt ten year bond is at 2.84% and down another -2 bps to a new yearly low. The New Zealand Govt ten year is now at 1.54% and actually up +1 bp, unusual in the circumstances.
The price of gold is now just at US$1816/oz and up another +US$2 from where we were yesterday.
Oil prices are sharply lower today and by about -US$2.50/bbl and in the US they are now just under US$71/bbl, while the international Brent price is down -US$3 at just over US$72.50/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar opens today just on 69.7 USc and unchanged since this time yesterday. Against the Australian dollar we are back lower at 94.7 AUc. Against the euro we are unchanged at 58.8 euro cents. That means our TWI-5 starts today at 72.5 and marginally lower.
The bitcoin price is now at US$39,766 and down -3.0% from this time yesterday. Volatility in the past 24 hours has been high at +/- 3.3%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
100 Comments
Jacinda Arden's ......... denial, lie and manipulation.......
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/08/jacinda-ardern-not-conv…
Queen is not convinced ?
1 : Power corrupts and start behaving like democratically elected dictator, feeling that they are supreme and what they feel say is final and gospel truth.
2 : This reflects their mindset towards housing crisis. Wether is National or Labour both are same but atleast National is upfront.
Not convinced as data does not suit their narrative otherwise to support their vested biased interest, always throw and hide behind data even if it may be not valid / filmsy.
Arrogance will be and is her downfall.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/08/jacinda-ardern-dodges-q…
Another example of no intent : DENIAL : just like John Key was not accepting that is a crisis (atlease he was upfront) and is she the same lady who went door to door for votes with promise to solve the crisis and got power( at that time it was a crisis when median was $700000 and for this hypocrite is not a crisis when is 1.3 million).
Regarding your 2nd link, the Human Rights Commissioner says "everyone has a right to a decent home". So he is effectively saying you shouldn't need to work hard to get a home, you are just entitled to one. What a bloody dreamer. What a waste of taxpayers money it is paying his salary.
No he is not. Right up until the early 2000s having a roof over your head was considered a basic human right in this country. But the creep actually began in the 1990s. This does not imply that it comes for free. Homelessness was always considered a basic societal failure. And for decades the only ones who were homeless were really the mentally ill, and who refused to be 'penned'. These days many are homeless for reasons beyond their control. This is utterly unacceptable, and should always be considered so. Why do you not think so?
"So he is effectively saying you shouldn't need to work hard to get a home..." Without being aware, you are alluding to a far deeper, and bigger, problem that has occurred worldwide that must be fixed. Socialism has become a dirty word, driven by capitalists who think they should be able to get rich off the backs of underpaid workers. But the reality is socialism doesn't mean that individuals can't be rich, it just means those individuals cannot invent new iterations of slavery, and most minimum wage jobs are just new forms of slavery. This capitalistic drive has systematically deprived huge portions of the populations of opportunity, decent wages and decent living conditions. Yes the hard drivers can still get there, but there simply is not the capacity for everyone to be a hard driver, and indeed most are not. But they must still be catered for. Our politicians either don't get it or they are in denial.
It won't make much difference to those high on Beanie's kool-aid. In their universe everything is as simple as 'if you work hard, you can achieve' and that if a person is struggling it's because of a lack of character and not because of insurmountable hurdles that society has created for them. Can't afford a house because you're born too late? Too bad, just work harder. Immigrant labour undercutting your income? Too bad, just work harder. Landlord taking all of your disposable income so you can live in a shitbox? Too bad, just work harder.
The mental gymnastics and the total lack the awareness would be amusing if it weren't so sad. Next you'll hear stories of how people had it just as rough in the 1980's....
In the prosperous utopia that is NZ, we've successfully handed over the supply of our food to a duopoly and the ownership of shelter to greedy speculators.
Our health system is reporting that people currently on waitlists for planned care and mental health treatment might have to wait for up to 2 years.
Experts reviewing our education system are describing it as nothing but state-sponsored daycares.
Great stuff!
Our healthcare was designed when we had a small physically hard working populace. We were healthy, wealthy and medical intervention was limited.
Fast forward to the perfect storm.
Massive health risks across all age groups, heart disease, obesity,cancers, ageing and imported population (many are life time smokers, poor health) and of course covid.
We are now poorer.
Medical intervention has advanced and is very expensive - people can be 'saved' ..at a lifetime $ cost..
So not hard to see where medical care by the State is heading.
Curled up in that though too is an elementary point that investment selection in NZ has been dominated by housing. There have been just too many collapses of securities. Go back to JBL, Securitibank, Broadbank then 2008 SCF etc. Take into account that one day Dr Cullen is bemoaning NZr’s penchant for property investment, a few days later his protege Cunliffe, collapses the Telecom share price, wiping great hunks of value of a blue chip holding of thousands of mum dad type investors. Property has simply become a safe haven opportunity for investment for many, who can blame them then for going with it.
Absolutely. The capitalistic drive stemming from the introduction of the 'free market economy' has meant that the old societal standards were dropped. Traditional, before the 80 -90 s, investments vanished as business's (and jobs) were exported. banks ensured saving money would not be a prudent exercise as they tried to capture as many as possible in a debt web (Rabo Bank today are dumping clients who have not got a loan portfolio with them), so the only way to protect your savings was to find an investment. For most the share market is too complex, hard to understand and the only ones sure to make money from it are the brokers. So comparatively property is an easy bet, and as conditions got worse, more fled to property as the only way to preserve ones savings. But numbers meant that they profited, and the banks creamed it too, through their mortgage portfolios. In the meantime politicians believe Mike Moore's advice to the then Lange Labour Government still stands - no government can afford to piss off the big money! Which for any Government is a fundamental betrayal of their constituents.
Sharp pencil & showing form this morning Muz. Well said. And yes by way of example we have friends of the family in their 80s. Gave up on the pointless TD returns & bought instead a 2 bedroom ownership flat thingy which they now live in and rent out the four bedroom family home. Never before owned more than there own home, but there household budget is now stronger than pre CV19.
Understanding a problem, how we got to where we are today is fundamental to building solutions. I don't think many of our politicians who take the time or effort to do this, and don't listen to their advisors (more likely won't hire one who persists in telling them what they don't want to hear) these days, so the solutions such as Kiwi Build are just so much BS. JA is in denial about the empty homes, because to accept that they are there would force her to accpet that there is some legislation lacking, and of course you can't piss off the money!
Thanks for the compliment Foxy.
When I moved from let’s say institutional employment into that of private enterprise my new boss, hardbitten but versed and capable, said here you will find you cannot fix a mistake until you admit you have made one. That was a stark reality check in that world, compared to the previous where things could just be massaged and dallied away.
Don't get me wrong Murray, our views are closer than you think. I agree anyone that goes to work should be able to afford a decent house. Yes house prices are twice as high as they should be for reasons well discussed.
What I don't agree with is the rise of a culture of entitlement. I built my own house with my hands...it is hard but satisfying work. There is no such thing as something for nothing... someone has to do the work.
They'll certainly remind you that they've paid their taxes all their life, which entitles them to $20k per annum. If they live to the average life expectancy of 82, they'll receive $340k in super (assuming rates remain the same). 17 years of super, borrowed, requiring 43 years worth of a $50k wage earners entire PAYE to pay off.
So what do you expect them to do? Live in their cars? With super they're only exercising their legal right to their legal entitlement under the law. Same as any other beneficiary in receipt of government income.
If you don't like it change the law. Paying taxes all your life is not a prerequisite for super in fact there will be many older women who never worked or worked very little.
Your just sounding a little bit entitled there. You may not get it and seemingly you're upset others do. Presumably you have employer kiwisaver contributions they never had.
BTW I'm no pensioner.
Try renting as a pensioner to supplement your income when you're physically unable to.
I'd expect them to at least be grateful, there was an opportunity to be prudent about retirement funding back in the 70s when Labour introduced a user pays scheme, but "shriek communism" Muldoon was voted in via landslide victory to abolish the scheme.
Not entitled at all. Like I said, a little gratitude goes a long way for a non-means tested welfare scheme for those who lived through the golden years of opportunity. You do realize they would have employer contributions too if they didn't vote Muldoon to scrap the super scheme?
I'd like to see an end to the state sponsored breeding programme, WFF, and accommodation supplements. These have enabled recipients to pay more in rents fuelling house price growth.
Also it just shows how skewed democracies get when people largely vote for whoever puts the most in their pocket at elections. It's the fast track toward socialism.
Case and point are the likes of WFF, interest fee loans, higher minimum wage, lack of deduction to welfare of you name your child's father etc.
I too would like to see an end to these schemes, that effectively funnel taxpayer funds into the back pockets of those with houses surplus to their needs. I am however grateful that when a child turns 3 the parents receive 20 hours free childcare funding, so I only pay $200 per week to have my daughter at preschool. This is down from nearly $400 per week under 3. What were childcare costs in the 70s?
Why is our govt so against babies? My daughter with one school kid was paying me about 75% of the going rate for renting our rental property. This allowed us elderly parents to break even financially. Then she had a 2nd child now 18 months old. My daughter had to return to work after 9 months because despite a moratorium on rent she couldn't afford to feed and clothe her kids. She wanted to take a year off. Now she is back to her above average pay employment; qualifies for no benefits and spends a fortune of pre-school. And she is now paying 50% of the going rate for our rental property and we have had to take out a mortgage on our family home to cover the costs. To be honest it is great to see our grandchildren and it is good to know our rental property will eventually become our inheritance to our 4 adult children. But why do you have to wait for age 5 for free child-minding at school and university? BTW our daughter's benefits would have been much better if she hadn't admitted to having a partner. Pls bring back non-means tested child benefit.
Jesus frazz, what a question. Well for a start this boomer had a very modest start to life and wasn't left anything by my parents. Neither me nor any of my many siblings, or my children, have ever held their hand out to the state. But I will collect the pension when my time comes.
Look around the country and see all the infrastructure that will be left to future generations. Hydro dams for one example, built in working conditions that wouldn't be tolerated today. There are literally thousands of examples I could give.
Every generation does their bit according to the custom of the times.
Beanie- your generation did what every other did - chewed into resources as if there were no tomorrow. Don't suggest your generation did hydro as a benevolent bequest; it did it because it though it was the cheapest option. Period. And much of that which you call bequest, will be increasingly unmaintainable as time goes on.
Ok pdk, tell us what your solution would be.
A: No electricity, or
B: Generate it another way?
The hydro dams were an investment designed to last for future generations. It will be another 100 years at least before they silt up. Then what happens depends on where civilisation is at. If your property had a little water running downhill I bet you would put a mini hydro on it.
Not sure if this is sarcasm? If not and you live in a city, go to the front door and look out, left then right. Then come back inside and turn on a light switch. Boomers are responsible for almost all the infrastructure this country has. I am not a Boomer but this generation has been the most significant of any NZ generation for the production of long term social infrastructure.
Since the introduction of the "free market economy" Beanie, every Government has systematically worked to get rid of ordinary jobs paying decent wages to averagely skilled and educated people. Sure there has been the projects such as John Key's tech economy, but the politicians were either too stupid to realise, or were actively lying to the public and the public were too gullible to understand that for 80% of the population these goals would be unattainable. There just isn't the market!
Average kids leaving school with just a basic education, should be able to have an expectation that there will be a job available for them for 40 hours per week. OK, the starting wage may be the living wage, but it should also grow reasonably quickly as they demonstrate a work ethic and ability. Governments have largely destroyed those opportunities. This has a huge cost in many areas.
The shortage of tradespeople today is an example of how this is completely messed up. Governments took away all support for apprenticeships, so they dropped to almost nothing. The extreme shortage is the consequence of this combined with the poor pay and conditions. The scramble to fix it will create ultimately too many tradespeople as the housing crisis settles, and the cycle will start all over again! This is not the way to manage an economy. Denial of problems until they are too big to ignore, then overreact and create more problems, deny those and then over react again....
Some great points made here Murray however Governments have not destroyed (purposefully) the basic jobs as our unemployment rate is only 4.7%.
The government absolutely F'd the apprenticeships when they messed with the Industry-led ITO's these have been "replaced" by pure commercial outfits and therefore don't have anything like the buy-in of the original ITO's. So we are getting the results of this choice now, no tradies, and those that there are can behave and charge what they like.
Disagree JAO. The jobs you could get up to early 80s are essentially gone. They have been replaced by the part time minimum wage, lousy working conditions that Judith Collins many years ago when National was rolling out their version, described as providing "lifestyle choice". BS really. They would eventually morph into attempts at "zero hour" contracts.
No what is needed is basic labour laws that enshrine the forty hour working week. Yes this goes back to some old standards, but also provides the greatest opportunity for a healthy, robust working population that has a decent life style. I do get that there will be an argument that many employers could not afford it. But a proper understanding of what dumping the gold standard (Richard Nixon, Bretton Woods) means provides the Government with some serious new thinking options on how tax policy can be used to build national resilience and support employment and small business's.
It is fair to say that the 80's roles have gone, as technology has largely replaced them, I started working life as a Clerk in the late 80s and the filling and internal document management work I did has been replaced by technology.
The new jobs are not largely "zero hour" roles, we track that using the under-utilisation rate which sits at 12.2%, it reflects people who:
- do not have a job, but are available to work and are actively seeking employment – unemployed
- are employed part time (fewer than 30 hours a week) and who both want and are available to increase the number of hours they work – underemployed
- want a job and are available to work, but are not currently looking for a job – available potential jobseeker
- are unavailable to start work but are looking for a job as they will be able to start work within the next month – unavailable jobseeker.
12.2% of people could work more but our employment rate is 67.1% and those roles are the 40 hour roles you claim are not readily available anymore.
Recall an interview with ex PM Muldoon at the time Rogernomics was getting into full stride. He said this would tear away the fabric of society in NZ as it had always been expected and was necessary. His type of government obviously had had its day but in this comment there is some reality. In the same vein Enoch Powell’s remonstrations in the UK in an earlier time.
Murray it sounds as though you live in a socialist dream world.
Capitalism is responsible for your exceptionally privileged and "never been seen before in the history of the Human animal" standard of living. Socialism on the other hand has been a abject failure (Nordics are the closest and they are petrol-powered) and responsible for literally millions of deaths in Soviet Russia and China.
Socialism is a dirty word because it represents a dangerous and repeatedly failed set of dreamy ideals that can poison a generation in a heart beat.
LOL that made me laugh, thank you.
But just to educate you, we have been in this state of evolvement for about 40,000 years or so, and that dense and abundant energy has been sitting there the whole time. Since 1048 and the gradual departure of feudalism we have been creating technology to enhance our standard of living. Arguably capitalism was borne in 1409 with the creation of the "Brugse Beurse" in what is now the Netherlands. Almost all technology has been created since that time, very, very recently in our history and almost all of it due to Capitalism.
Capitalism is amoral, it depends on endless competition and therefore a basic distrust of others while also relying on trust and the rule of law to get the capital together to make investments. Socialism assumes human nature can be improved by changing our circumstances/environment; it aims for a utopia where we all care about one another. To date capitalism has been more successful; maybe changing human nature is not easy. However socialist Denmark does seem a better place than dog eat dog Haiti or Somalia. PDK is correct about both systems having no mechanism that properly costs pollution, waste and consumption of finite resources.
So you are saying that only a capitalist will or can invent a tool to make their life easier? Only a capitalist would make it available to his fellow man to help their society? Rubbish! A capitalist would only sell it to someone else in the name of money, wealth and power. A socialist would see the benefit to all and ensure those benefits are for them.
I was watching a TV program the other day where around the 1100s new settlers in part of England were gifted a plow to help them settle and succeed with their farming. Was that done by a capitalist? Your perspective of capitalism is over-simplistic and misapplied, just as it is of socialism.
Yes, the land owner would have given them a plow to make them more productive, this is exactly how capitalism works. The plow supplier is comfortable knowing the settler will come back to them to buy more or a replacement come time. This is a loss leader and as you have pointed out been around since 1100.
A socialist would not give the capital they have to another unless they were sure that there was a social contract that such generosity would be repaid. Honestly perhaps this would be a nice society to live in but it has yet to exist.
Disagree. The implication of the article was that the recipient of the plow was the land owner, not the giver of the gift. The circumstance did not imply some form of serfdom at all. Modern society encompasses parts of capitalism, that is private ownership, but at the same time, at the extremes capitalism awards power and privilege to the wealthiest. That power and privilege comes at a cost to society though. What you're failing to do is understand human psychology within theoretical models. Pure socialism or communism will not work just as the extremes of capitalism won't. Communism assumes collective ownership and participation, but human psychology will prevent that from being successful as the talented or more able will not benefit against those who are lazy. Pure capitalism will result increasingly in all the resources 'owned' by just a few, while the masses are subjugated, subservient to those few. Which of these two extremes do you think is best to fit real human beings?
I suggest neither. I suggest that for society to fully succeed then all must benefit, not just a few. But all must contribute too. Thus from the central perspective private ownership rewards enterprise, but regulated labour laws ensures that a few don't get rich of the sweat of others without having to reward them too. Resources are running out, so further regulation is required to ensure they are fairly distributed, but that all have access. Those regulations can be used as well to support the development of alternatives to scarce resources, to constrain monopolistic behaviours to ensure alternatives actually get an opportunity to be tested and tried. As a whole too we are often irrational towards mistakes or accidents, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiich being examples.
Government negligence has created a mess where power and privilege is cornered by an increasingly smaller group of people. Government solutions, to appease the masses and try to get them to vote, invariably place increased costs on those masses that they are less able to afford. so the slide towards oblivion continues albeit cloaked in the korowhai of sweet words and political slogans.
You were implying capitalism was solely responsible for our standard of living (which you've gone on to admit is incorrect by acknowledging that it's actually resources that dictate it). If you took away the resources it wouldn't matter if we had capitalism or communism, your standard of living would be a hell of a lot lower than today. Lets at least get the basics right.
You implied we only enjoy this standard of living due to capitalism, I just stated it's largely fossil fuels that have given us this standard of living. I mean, the industrial revolution was literally the start of tapping into this huge energy abundance. You really can't refute this point.
I also disagree that 'only capitalism' could have done this. There are quite likely other possible economic systems that could be set up to give us a similar level of material level of comfort. We'd never know because we're locked into capitalism and know no different. I think it's very naïve to assume this is the only possible viable economic system that could ever provided material comfort for people.
You are mistaking socialism for communism JAO, and appear typical of many today. Unable to discern that there is a difference, and that everyone in society should be able to benefit from society's successes. I am a centrist, but I strongly believe that all should have a chance. Attributing success to capitalism is not correct, but capitalism did play a part. Capitalism and socialism are both important aspects of a fair, balanced and effective system. Capitalism, just like communism has gone too far with the wealthy thinking they are the righteous, and all others should be subservient to them. I do agree that our social welfare system has gone too far, but before we can fix that, we have to ensure that there are good jobs available. Your last sentence advocates greed over fairness and equity. What kind of society do you want to gift your children or grandchildren?
Using Russia (I assume you meant the Soviet Union) and China is a poor rationale as they were/are totalitarian societies which suppresses talent and ability. Any true democracy would not do that, and would reward people for talent as well as effort. To argue that capitalism is a success is the line that successive Governments are taking here when they argue that there is no housing crisis, or it can't or shouldn't be fixed. Ask yourself this question - what will capitalism do when the resources come to an end? Do not assume that society will suddenly become the balanced, fair egalitarian one that does not exist now.
The Government has binding human rights and Te Tiriti obligations to create conditions which permit everyone to enjoy a warm, dry, safe, accessible and affordable home
I would imagine this would instead imply that people working a regular job and contributing to society would expect to be able to afford a home. As it stands, even white collar workers are now largely shut out of this opportunity in NZ.
So 3rd world type housing is insufficient? It's a roof but not decent enough. Why does the standard for that basic human right differ from country to country?
In NZ a decent house has heat pumps, double glazing, internet, insulation, hot and cold running water, extractor fans etc. Growing up in the 60s from that mix we made do with just hot and cold water.
In NZ a decent house has heat pumps, double glazing, internet, insulation, hot and cold running water, extractor fans etc. Growing up in the 60s from that mix we made do with just hot and cold water.
This is kind of a dumb take on things seeing as the cost to heat was significantly cheaper in the 1960's which negated the need for insulation, double glazing wasn't possible, modern internet hadn't been invented, and heat-pumps weren't around in any purchasable form either.
Of course you went without things that were literally unavailable or not invented... I'm sure those in 1800's went without internet too if it makes you feel better.
No this is not correct.
In 1959 the price of electricity including water heating in Wellington was ~13/kWh per Shilling, 20 Shillings to a pound. In 1959 the Minimum Wage Order 1959 Act required all salaried workers to be paid at least £9 17s. 6d. a week. Or 197 Shillings a week after conversion. In my modern house I use an average of ~30kWh a day. In 1959 terms this would cost me ~69 Shillings per month or roughly a third of one weeks wages.
In 2021 the price of electricity is .25c per kWh and 83c a day fixed rate. Price using my average above of electricity is therefore $249.90 per month. Minimum wage today is $20 per hour so $800 per week. Therefore the price of electricity today is roughly a third of one weeks wages.
Therefore the price of electricity to a minimum wage household is the same.
No doubt you burned through huge piles of wood too. Can you imagine the air quality of a city the size of Auckland or Christchurch if everyone was burning wood for heat still?
Insulation and double glazing are an absolute no brainer, not a luxury. NZ standards in this are crazy and we waste vast quantities of electricity as a result.
And what a disaster that has turned out to be for anybody living around Fenton St. The worst area of Rotorua now, which is saying something.
And the cost to the taxpayer is mind boggling. Someone paying tax on their second job cleaning offices at night just wasted on an overpriced motel room.
I know a couple of managers at national cleaning companies. Other than a few hardened (and mostly older) souls cleaners rotate through the job almost monthly. For good reason. A single parent household, working very hard to get $800 a week, less costs of childcare versus $537.76 a week for sitting on your ass watching the Olympics.
I agree and sadly I voted for Labour (purely because of their early Covid response). JC appears to be on a popularity quest - I'm tired of being talked down to (those childish Covid & 3 Waters ads drive me crazy). The Govt's response to people whinging on tv about being stuck in OZ etc (they were warned they would be on their own). JC has no backbone.
That 40,000 figure regards homes unoccupied on Census day. As to housing, rapid price increases are a function of cheap money and it is an issue in many countries. The worst scandal for me is the way the government has denied thousands of citizens stranded overseas the human right to return home while giving them no support at all. Many are struggling emotionally and financially and are at the end of their tether. I am talking people with genuine reasons, ie overseas study has finished, work has ended, marital issues, illness etc. I am talking people who left before the pandemic, not those who travelled afterwards. This needs to be fixed ASAP. If you’re an ISIS terrorist you get a hug and a spot in MIQ!
It doesn't surprise me that 7.3% of dwellings are unoccupied at any given time. There could be a whole raft of reasons why a house is empty including people overseas on business/leisure, people with a holiday house, houses being sold, houses being renovated or repaired, deceased estates waiting to be settled etc. There needs to be more extensive research because there are so many possibilities that we could easily draw the wrong conclusion. As I've indicated previously I probably spend more than 7.3% of the time not living in my house on average, should I face a punitive tax because I'm on business or visiting family?
Very good points, in Christchurch there are hundreds of houses, that haven't been occupied for the last 11 years, in the beginning after the EQ, there were thousands of such places. Check out https://www.realestate.co.nz/4049669/residential/sale/422-port-hills-ro… . Such houses will have certainly shown up in multiple census statistics. Go to any place where people have a holiday home like Wellington, Coromandel, or Kaikoura, Wanaka and you will find over half empty, especially since census is done on a weekday. We have a three baches, around the country, and on census night, my wife was at one of them, and I was at home, the other two were empty.
...And a lot of those holiday houses and such wouldn't typically be in major centres of employment anyway making their occupancy irrelevant. I'm open to arguments but it needs to be much better and more in depth research to convince me a new tax would solve any problem.
We've only seen low single digit consumer price inflation rates across developed economies for a couple of quarters. Certainly nothing to write home about.
It won't stop the usual economists from doing their chicken little routine but in reality I think we can live with a single digit inflation rate long-term.
I wonder if the miners have heard of a whole country that doesn't want it's gas.
'On U.S. oil patches stretching along the Rockies and Great Plains, trailers hitched to trucks back up toward well pads to capture natural gas and convert it on the spot into electricity.
The trailers - carrying pipes, generators and computers - are called “mining rigs.” But their owners aren’t there to drill for oil. They are using stray natural gas unwanted by oil companies to power their search for another treasure: cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.'
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/oil-drillers-bitc…
Delta is about to do a full circle and come back and bite China in the bum. All the evidence is that this is so transmissible, once its out in the community its game over. Nobody has yet been able to contain it, even lockdowns are not working, at best they slow the transmission rate but the numbers are not dropping. NZ needs to wake up and fast, we cannot allow this variant to even get into the country, not even into MIQ as we STILL don't have the right facility to deal with Covid after more than a year. Its game over for Labour if this get out.
The UK is coping quite well, as is the US and many other democratic countries. Also you might have noticed that the Olympics are taking place. Such alarmism doesn’t help anybody. Death and hospitalisation rates are far lower than in the first wave. But we do need to hurry up the vaccination process. I do agree, though, that Covid is the only thing this government has going for it.
Delta has only just got going, clearly you have not seen the figures or graphs. Its just taking off in Myanmar now which boarders half the worlds population. Perhaps we should look at the situation again in a couple of months. Nothing alarmist about it, no point in talking about the first wave, some countries are on their fourth wave and the worst is yet to come. NZ needs to get prepared.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.