Supply and Demand in action......

DaddyBear

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You also had a step up from your parents, as no matter what you write about your oh so perfect example above, you fail to mention you yourself could not afford the property you desired, so chose to use your parents.

For a moment there I thought you were saying it was all about choice.

But then you have conviniently missed luck, background, handouts as you described how well you have done for yourself, by yourself....though not quite so by yourself as you make out....while basically preaching to others they made the wrong choices.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
post of the week.
I've always wondered why he has such an idealised and simplistic view of things. Now I know..... He's never had to live in the real world.
If I'd had any respect for him in the first place it would have just evaporated.
He needs to change his tag line to "housing is affordable if you work hard........... And get a big free handout"!!!!!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

globalds wrote: »

So if you stop peoples welfare , and presumably ask them to leave there state funded accommodation....
What happens to them ..
Lets for the sake of this discussion assume it is a single Mom with 3 kids.

You would obviously have to have a transitional period. It would be unfair to change the rules on someone half way through.

We are, ultimately, not going to let people starve or freeze to death on the streets.

But there is no reason why that requires a 4 bedroom house to be provided to every single mum with 3 kids by 3 fathers, who chose to "breed for benefits."

I'd suggest building dormitories, with attached cafeterias, learning rooms and job centres.

And informing all 14 year olds that we will no longer provide a house or any cash benefits to single parents or the unemployed once they use their lifetime allowance of benefits. A bed in a dorm, cafeteria food, and a bus pass to get to interviews is as good as it will get.

ukcarper

Originally Posted by HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And if they are willing to move 20 or 30 minutes down the road, away from the employment hubs, they'll find a house for 200K, not 350K, in most areas.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, and they will find that their commuting bill sky rockets. Remember that discussion about "people don't need two cars" etc. You were right behind that.

Yet now you suggest that people simply moved 20 or 30 mins away.

So they will need either cars, or transport, to go to work. Their commuting bill will go up, and they are no better off. Their same money is now going towards transport instead of housing.

I do wish that life was as simplistic as you make out, as in all honesty, it would be so much easier for ALL of us. But, to put it bluntly, it's not.

People have a set amount of money coming in. If more of that money goes on fuel, or transport, they have less for housing. It goes round and round in circles.

But thats what I had to do back in 1972 and alot of people who I worked with done the same.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Originally Posted by HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And if they are willing to move 20 or 30 minutes down the road, away from the employment hubs, they'll find a house for 200K, not 350K, in most areas.







But thats what I had to do back in 1972 and alot of people who I worked with done the same.

Yes, I did it too. I was just pointing out to Hamish that there is then an extra cost to living, which means you can spend less on a house.

Cleaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ahhh, but that's the thing. 30 years ago, this was not a "nice village, in a nice place", it was a "normal" village, with "normal" people, that was actually cheaper than the nearby town where you can now get a flat for 60K, whereas 2 bed cottages in the village are 125K and up.

My parent actually both grew up and worked in the nearby town, and moved to the village as they got more for their money. That situation has now reversed.

The only differences between then and now is that almost no houses were built in the village, whereas lots were built in the town. And the village is closer to Aberdeen, which puts it in the outer ring of the Aberdeen commuter belt, whereas the town is just those few miles too far out, for now. Although this commuter belt has grown steadily for years, and I would assume it will keep growing.

I get all this, and agree with you on pretty much everything on this thread, including the original post. There are some people on here that see some boarded up houses in Liverpool or somewhere and argue that there isn't a housing shortage. This is simplistic in the extreme and whether you want to call it a housing shortage, distribution problem, or whatever else, I agree with you that a lack of housing that people want to live in, in locations they want to live in, causes prices to rise now and in the future. There are obviously lots of other factors that helps these rises, including a cultural bent towards making money from property in this country and a rental sector which isn't very secure for tennants or very well managed nationally compared to other counrties, from what I can see.

So we agree on the above. You, like I, acknowledge that there is a housing shortage / distribution problem and this pushes up prices. We probably also agree that building new houses is one of the answers, and we also probably agree that it's ironic that a lot of people don't want lots of new build houses near their nice villages and towns.

What I don't get, and what I'm asking you about is why it's then a good thing to see house prices rise so dramatically. When we have a thread on here which shows house prices rising 1.3% in a month, as we sometimes do, you will often post something along the lines of "told you so bears, prices on the rise, this is a great showing this month!" along with one of these:

:beer:

Why? If you acknowledge that there is an acute housing shortage in this country, which is causing huge house price rises and will continue to cause rises (in your opinion) then why treat this as something to celebrate? Why is this good for the current population and future generations? You know I'm not one of these people that expects to get a 3-bed semi detached house ina nice area on £20k wages and I think that in many areas in this country the average person can buy the average house. But there are huge swathes of this country where normal, average earning, young people are restricted from buying pretty much anything other than a small hovel for a small fortune, often due to the reasons you point out. This causes prices to rise further, and we agree on this.

So, to ask again, why is this a good thing and reason to celebrate?

System

Cleaver wrote: »

So, to ask again, why is this a good thing and reason to celebrate?

At a guess, partly because he owns 2 of them, and partly because being right is always worth a good gloat

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

So, to ask again, why is this a good thing and reason to celebrate?

Because he personally get's richer in terms of asset wealth.

There is no other answer really. He was celebrating fuel prices going up as aberdeen will get richer and therefore he will get richer in asset worth as house prices will go up.

So basically he clebrates it because he personally is better off in terms of asset wealth, and he want to retire on this asset wealth later in life. I guess at least he's open enough about it, so fair play.

The one problem however is he still has to buy somewhere to retire too, and thats also going up in price, so it all falls down then.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because he personally get's richer in terms of asset wealth.

True (and that was what I was obviously hinting at), but there's more to it than that.

You and I both own houses and we also like to see our 'asset' go up in value. I'm not talking about stupid 1.7% rises month on month that we cheer on and then update in a spreadsheet to see how much money we've 'made', more that we want to see our house rise in value in line with everything else in a sustainable, controlled way. If you didn't want or think houses would do this then you wouldn't buy a house.

Who knows with Hamish though. 'Tis a very strange thing indeed.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Joeskeppi wrote: »

At a guess, partly because he owns 2 of them, and partly because being right is always worth a good gloat

Indeed.

Particularly when it's been the lone bull against 1000 bears for the last 18 months more often than not. And said bears have shown great delight and relish over the prospect of me, or any other homeowner, losing money.

But the fact remains that I am right.

And I was always going to be right.

Just look at the cold hard facts about housing vacancy rates.

Ireland 17%
Spain 16%
USA 11%
Germany 8.2%
France 6.8%
UK 3.2%

And look at how closely the crash size in different countries has correlated to vacancy rates.

I don't dispute for one moment that bubbles can exist in housing. And that they clearly have done in some countries. But the UK's supply and demand fundamentals show clearly that it was not a bubble, and won't be for many years of growth yet. And the UK is not alone in this. Australia has also shown significant gains, now above previous peak in fact. They also have strong population growth and tight planning rules. And much higher price to income ratio's than we do, and higher interest rates by far.

People who ignore the fundamentals of supply and demand are going to be very, very surprised at how far house prices in this country will rise over the next decade or two.

Cleaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

Particularly when it's been the lone bull against 1000 bears for the last 18 months more often than not. And said bears have shown great delight and relish over the prospect of me, or any other homeowner, losing money.

But the fact remains that I am right.

And I was always going to be right.

So the answer to my question 'why is this a good thing?' is simply that you want to be right over a group of people on the internet?