Naturally, everyone blames “fertility.” As though biology suddenly went on strike sometime around 1992.
But neither ovaries nor sperm unionised. The culprit is more prosaic—house prices. It turns out the stork demands a 20% deposit.
Americans, for once, took the lead. A new study confirmed what few were willing to admit. Housing costs explain more than half the baby drought. If housing had been more affordable in recent decades, decline in fertility would have been smaller by 51%. New Zealand's own Treasury-Reserve Bank brain trust signalled this relationship years earlier. Nobody listened. Apparently, it takes Americans to make uncomfortable economic truths undeniable.
High house prices, it seems, are nature’s most reliable contraceptive. They work particularly well on the young. Show them a Trade Me listing and watch their libido fall by 40%.
I remember sitting at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. A group of young analysts, bright and hopeful, argued for more competitive urban land markets to reduce the artificially inflated land prices propping up our house values. Senior officials, with the serene confidence of people sitting on mature property portfolios, told them to “just go rent; it’s the same as owning anyway.”
A charming idea. Almost whimsical. Like suggesting money does not matter after you have made yours.
The same generation that encourages lifelong renting has conveniently forgotten it also expects younger workers to fund their retirement. Preferably, those who are actually having babies. Preferably, ones not living in childhood bedrooms.
But whenever successive governments try to reform housing, every effort quietly diffuses inside Wellington’s most underrated macroeconomic force: senior ranks of officialdom.
These are institutions that have mastered the art of polite obstruction to protect incumbent interests. They nod earnestly, commission a discussion paper, schedule another consultation round and ensure competitive urban land markets never actually materialise.
The irony is perfect. A retirement serenely free of grandchildren, because there will not be many. A masterclass, really, in preserving high house prices while inadvertently losing the species. Oops.
Benno is a Research Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative with a wide range of policy interests. This article was first published HERE
Americans, for once, took the lead. A new study confirmed what few were willing to admit. Housing costs explain more than half the baby drought. If housing had been more affordable in recent decades, decline in fertility would have been smaller by 51%. New Zealand's own Treasury-Reserve Bank brain trust signalled this relationship years earlier. Nobody listened. Apparently, it takes Americans to make uncomfortable economic truths undeniable.
High house prices, it seems, are nature’s most reliable contraceptive. They work particularly well on the young. Show them a Trade Me listing and watch their libido fall by 40%.
I remember sitting at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. A group of young analysts, bright and hopeful, argued for more competitive urban land markets to reduce the artificially inflated land prices propping up our house values. Senior officials, with the serene confidence of people sitting on mature property portfolios, told them to “just go rent; it’s the same as owning anyway.”
A charming idea. Almost whimsical. Like suggesting money does not matter after you have made yours.
The same generation that encourages lifelong renting has conveniently forgotten it also expects younger workers to fund their retirement. Preferably, those who are actually having babies. Preferably, ones not living in childhood bedrooms.
But whenever successive governments try to reform housing, every effort quietly diffuses inside Wellington’s most underrated macroeconomic force: senior ranks of officialdom.
These are institutions that have mastered the art of polite obstruction to protect incumbent interests. They nod earnestly, commission a discussion paper, schedule another consultation round and ensure competitive urban land markets never actually materialise.
The irony is perfect. A retirement serenely free of grandchildren, because there will not be many. A masterclass, really, in preserving high house prices while inadvertently losing the species. Oops.
Benno is a Research Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative with a wide range of policy interests. This article was first published HERE
7 comments:
And as a result of a shortage of people house prices will languish.
NACTFML is happy to incentivise the downward spiral with tax rebates for investors who have piled in on non-productive assets (houses). And then telling the young people to move to wherever the work is, which just happens to be Australia.
Only applies to the sectoin of society who desire some control over the neighbourhood (neighbours) where they live. At the other end many deliberately breed to escape the drudgery of a menial job and to obtatin a stste unit These tend to be the least able, of which we have a surfeit for the modern technological world. So we regress instead of advancing
Hey don’t worry everybody, there are millions ready to move from India to NZ to make up the deficit. Soon no-one will be able to tell the difference between big India and little India down here in the South Pacific.
Bill T... Especially large family type homes.
And those same middle management, controlling their fiefdoms, then slide into semiretirement- that is, they take the redundancy package payouts, but then return to work the following week on reduced days- and hold onto the same senior positions they had before, thereby preventing the next generation from climbing the ladder to prosperity and affordable housing. We won’t miss them when they are gone. Okay bommers!
This is just another rant and cry blaming one's miserable life and failure on an entire generation or anyone who might have had a successful job.
And the comments section mostly full of the same trite.
I've no sympathy.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.