Synky

You get them too! I just used Glasgow cos that's what I know and was making a point about everywhere sucking.

TommyLuck

That doesn't answer my question ...

lapsed kiwi

Drooling was a strange word to use. From my perspective, I was trying to express why Auckland seems better value than London/Birmingham/Manchester etc despite the numbers indicating that it isn't. I guess if you're happy to live in an average city dwelling and follow an average city lifestyle, then NZ isn't good value. My household has 2 kids, a dog, 2 boats, 4 bikes, 3 windsurfers, 3 kayaks, a nice trampoline on the lawn and a hot tub on the deck. I can't have all this "stuff" in an average UK city dwelling, but I like having it and it lets me do the things I and my family like. If that makes me materialistic or a drooler, then fine, but it means that NZ is a much better "fit" for me than urban Europe.

TommyLuck

Sounds good to me.

When do I move in?

lapsed kiwi

Unless you bear a striking resemblance to Michelle Pfeiffer, you're out of luck

TommyLuck

No, but I reckon I'd look good in a cat suit.


Joking aside, I think that what you have is what I'm aspiring too when I arrive later this year.

I have mentioned on here before the although I'm not leaving London for any negative reasons I don't 'do' the culture and the shenanigans that London has on it's doorstep.

I generally stick to what I like and know, these days.

Therefore, in effect I make London an average place to experiece because I don't try anything new, I've found what I like and stick to the same places, although I'm willing to be invited along to a museum, pub or restaurant by friends, but that is my only source of experiencing anything new.

I want to sample to a different (at this stage not better, nor worse) type of life which all comes in to measuring the value I'm getting for my money.

Synky

My husband has said a hot tub is part of the agreement to go to NZ

_0v0_

Hold up folks. We are not talking value for money here, but the financial feasability of purchasing a house in the UK versus purchasing a house in NZ. There are only three relevant criteria I can see:

1. the cost of what's on offer
2. the cost of buying it (e.g. taking out a home loan and paying interest on it)
3. the ability of buyers to pay it.

Section size, whether the house is detatched, whether you have trees outside and so on is irrelevant to this question, although it is perfectly valid to point out that individual people might decide to purchase a house, despite its being less affordable, because it is more desirable to them. I am looking purely at the money equation.

My original comment was that the reason for greater affordability of houses in the UK is because section sizes are smaller.

If you think I am shifting the goalposts it is because you have misunderstood my point - in fact you are confusing affordability with value for money. If, for example, in country X the only cars available for purchase are Rolls-Royces, Aston Martins and Ferraris, people will generally find cars less affordable than in other countries even if those cars generally sell for less in country X than their average worldwide market price. As it happens, I don't think NZ houses fall into the Rolls-Royce bracket, but I hope this illustrates my point.

I will remark that it must be pretty frustrating to sit in an Aston Martin but with no money for petrol (like the ACDC song).

This was in response to a point (which I thought very valid) made by Genesis: that bank loan rates make houses less affordable in NZ.

I don't think the bank margins have anything to do with it. The ability to service a loan is of central relevance to housing affordability - what the banks charge will determine this. What margin they take between their lending rate and the OCR is purely a matter for the bank.

This shows why one should leave such matters out of account. Value for money will depend on what the individual wants in a house. If, for example, one likes year-round snow, houses in London and Auckland represent poor value.

No, it depends on what people are able to pay - up to a point. When economists talk about "high" house prices, they mean they are out of kilter with market fundamentals. The Philippines are crowded, but I expect house prices are lower than in developed countries with lower population density.

Simonsi, you also picked me up on these reasons I gave for the relevance of this discussion (which you denied)

I said:

You said

I think this reply only applies to cashed-up retirees who own a house without having to service a mortgage.

This discussion is relevant to the immigrant who is (quite reasonably) opts to move to NZ without first buying a house and who (quite reasonably) wants to know how much of a burden housing costs will be on his or her budget.

It is relevant to locals who want to move the other way.

In short, it is relevant to everyone else.

It is particularly relevant to me, because I am contemplating moving away - either to the UK or SA. Both offer greater housing affordability when compared to the incomes I can expect in either of those places and the cost of borrowing. If I buy overseas and sell in NZ now, I will have closed out a very profitable financial position (due to rising NZD and falling house prices in the UK particularly).

I suspect also that you are confusing affordability with value once again. Cost of housing is only one consideration for an emigrant. But it remains a consideration. I expect it's no fun sitting in the shade under a fruit tree, contemplating how one can't afford a beer because all one's disposable income is going to the bank.

_0v0_

...and this discussion is relevant to domestic policy too.

See this article Bryan Gould: Blame ideology for housing crisis and this: (Stuff) Exodus warning by house seekers.

There is (on any reasonable criteria) a housing crisis in New Zealand: families are finding it hard to house themselves adequately on their NZ incomes. It is worth noting that below the line it is quickly pointed out that the problem is "worse in other countries" (meaning the UK) - a claim that in my opinion is untrue.

Assanah

Sure. Having money is the absolute basis of course. And prices in NZ are high because they don't correspond to the income of people. I understand that.

But I was talking about a more specific topic. If you move (within first world countries) from a big city to a remote location you can't be surprised that you are able to afford a house with a bigger garden. And I am sure that demand and supply has something to do with it.

Assanah

Recently read an article in the NZHerald:

....Auckland continues to be the least affordable market, with a median multiple of 6.7, followed by Christchurch (6.6), Tauranga-Western Bay of Plenty (5.9), Wellington (5.4) and Dunedin (5.1) all severely unaffordable.
Palmerston North (4.4), Napier-Hastings (4.5) and Hamilton (4.7) are all ranked as seriously unaffordable.
Auckland is still more affordable than Australian cities Sydney (8.3) and Melbourne (7.5), but less affordable than Adelaide (6.5), Perth (5.9) and Brisbane (5.8).
Houses are now nearly 80 per cent more expensive than the historic affordability housing norm of 3 times the median income, which was last experienced in the 1990s.


Affordability around the world:
Housing market, median multiple
Hong Kong, China, 13.5
Sydney, Australia, 8.3
Melbourne, Australia, 7.5
Auckland, New Zealand, 6.7
Adelaide, Australia, 6.5
New York, US, 6.2
Los Angeles, US, 6.2
Perth, Australia, 5.9
Brisbane, Australia, 5.8
London, United Kingdom, 5.1
Dublin, Ireland, 3.6
Source: Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey
(Median multiple represents the median house price divided by the median income)

simonsi

If you carefully read Genesis' post he was talking about OCR and Base rates - now I don't know about you but I pay what the banks charge, not the OCR or Base rate. So the bank margins are wholly relevant (especially as we pay them!). I agree the lending rate is the key factor, but that isn't what Genesis said. In simple terms that is made up of bank cost (which may or may not be the OCR or Base rate), and bank margin.

"I think this reply only applies to cashed-up retirees who own a house without having to service a mortgage."

So I comment that it is a complex issue that will apply to people differently and you somehow deduce I am making a comment that only applies to a certain part of the population??

"Affordable" by definition takes into account the ability to pay (as your simple Ferrari/Aston example), whereas "value for money" does not. This is a forum for expats and should provide experience and assistance relevant to their likely circumstances and not necessarily the NZ income average, after all NZ is loking for skilled migrants, the average income of which should be above the NZ average...

simonsi

Cool! That's the "affordable" factual part of this discussion over with then, the rest of the discussion can be about the relevance of averages and value for money.

Synky

As I said, many parts of UK higher than 5.1 times.

_0v0_

Simonsi, you are a naughty, naughty fellow.

Genesis' point was very clear and simple. It was that the higher OCR in NZ means that banks charge higher interest rates on home loans.

Higher interest rates means, to put it bluntly, you pay more to buy a house. I'm sure you understand this very well.

I make no comment on what you intended to say. My comment is that what you in fact say is not relevant to anyone for whom affordability isn't an issue, ie, because they've got lots and lots of money. I know a few migrants who have basically retired to New Zealand: from the sales of their UK homes they can buy very decent properties here - a person with an unencumbered London property and a decent pension can still buy a very, very decent property here. But, such people are a minority: they are pretty far from the circumstances of the majority of migrants, who have or intend to have families at some point, who are working age and far from financially independent: such people have to take what is offered them by the market and by the banks.

If it is true that the average employment-age migrant will command an above-average salary in NZ it is also true that said migrants will command an above-average salary in their country of origin. So I don't think what you say has any bearing on this discussion.

If you wish. If those stats are reliable, I win! London is more affordable than Auckland: it can be presumed that so is the rest of the UK unless you can prove to the contrary.

Now go to the naughty step.