|
|
Given the population density of the places like Hong Kong, Singapore or Tokyo, it's hard to deny that they deserve a reasonable high price. Don't forget Australia and New Zealand are extremely sparsely populated countries, which tells the "lower house price" in the past reflect its a relatively reasonable price. Take NZ for example, it's a nation with similar area as that of the UK, while the latter has a 15 times larger population. Anybody living in Auckland would admit that, though being considered the biggest city across the country, there are so many not-yet explored land even in the district not far from CBD. Few argue that NZ lack usable land.
Secondly, despite the population density, in a normal and healthy market, the housing price relates to the income people can earn there. An typical example to clarify this point is like Shanghai, why so many people in China are surging in Shanghai. Working in Shanghai means lots of technical job oppurtunities with times of pay than that in a small town in inland area. That is to say, Shanghai somehow deverse a high living price. In contrast, what's the reward of working in Sydney or Auckland? A number of reports show that the increase of housing price outstrip salary, or Aucklanders earn more from home than work, while the gap is on the rise. Everyone knows what it means to workers? Has anybody talked with the typical workers that can't afford housing and struggling with the high living cost, who can't get huge support from their wealthy parents, unlike most one-child Chinese migrants? People study and work in the US don't have such issue and most of those do come from a less wealthy background as I know. A fair society from my perspective should reward people by their capabilities not the wealth of their parents.
Just like the guy working in NZ taxation bureau said: the disproportionate tells us this country doesn suit salary workers like you, but those who are bringing money into the country and enjoy the life (and the income from the houses). The housing price is driven by those from overseas not from local workers.
Lets come back to the income/housing ranking. San Francisco turns to be the only major US city with a high ranking position. But is the job prospect there just a little better than Sydney/Auckland? More improtantly, most American worker especially in technical position don't need to stay in metroplis area, in comparison to marketing/financial ones. Just like my classmate in US said, don't argue that the housing price in Auckland so expensive, why do you stay in the largest city? I can't afford the house in NYC either. The fact he revealed is, unlike in US, people working in IT must stay in big cities here, nowhere in even smaller cities. But in the US that's by no means the case. He works in Texas as a chemistry scientist, and we can see the ratio of Texas cities. The paradise is just the place where you work in a relatively small town (which does attact property investors) while doing a highly technical job. Sydney/Auckland are just on the opposite. Surely for property speculation, the preference is on the other way, Auckland has a high potential, who cares about the salary of local workers?
<<For most people (except those with endless pocket who can flip multiple houses in a year) in order to make the best out of the property market, one must maintain a highly paid job (which means they DO work don't do dodgy things to evade tax) so that they can benefit from the tax deduction.>>
Statitical data and my own experience strongly deny this assertion. Offical data shows that most Chinese Australian and Chinese New Zealanders earn less then the national average (in the US, Chinese American earn more than national average), while the house ownership is arguably high: the Chinese housing debate early in NZ already sparked a national debate according to the data revealed by the property agent. For me I met a number of Chinese migrants here, unfortunately none of them earn more than me, but ALL own at least one house (typically 2~3). Some even live on benefits, and the most of them never pay tax on the rent income (which made the offical income underrated, that is to say the legal income of Chinese migrants tend to be low but not the actual overall income).
I wish what you tell me is the truth: most migrants here are hard-working, have high income in highly technical jobs, and they have little interest in the income from property bubble, but my rational understanding clearly suggests that is the United States, not here. |
|
楼主: liu_yu_1980
[复制链接]
发表于 17-10-2015 18:24:42
