What's the point in us having more affordable property prices for first home buyers if young workers are jetting off to Australia in search of a better tomorrow? 

There's a perverse logic to this, but across the Tasman right now, where our flying Kiwis are headed, they're experiencing something of a property boom. 

It's the opposite of the stagnant or falling prices we're seeing here, where homes in most regions are now considered, technically at least, affordable. 

In Sydney the median prices of a new pad is predicted to increase 7% this year to $2.1m NZD by June 2026. 

If you want to be a Melbourne hipster, prices will be 6% higher in a year to $1.2m.

They've not got a problem which we know all too well - prices are squeezing out first home buyers. 

You can't get on the ladder for love nor money, look at the new loans from banks. 

Landlords: 200k new loans over the year - that's the most since 2022. First home mortgages, they're down to $116k.

Because they're cutting interest rates, houses are more affordable for those with equity - i.e. existing homeowners and landlords. 

Typically, this is seen as a problem - you want people to have a stake in their country and the best way to do that is owning a piece of it. 

But property is inextricably linked to the success of our economy, falling and flat house prices here are not actually a great news story. 

The wealth effect of the biggest asset most of us own informs our spending habits. When we feel richer, we go swipe the credit card. When we don't, we don't. 

So the question is: is it better to have affordable homes in a country in which young people can't find a job, or are you better off in a country where homes are less affordable but wages are higher and the economy's stronger? 

The answer lies in the number of Kiwis who're voting with their feet and buggering off across the Tasman.