Council houses for fixed terms only!

wherediditallgothen

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Prices ARE decided, and they are advertised. But the price is not the deciding factor, need (or more often a combination of need and length of time on the list) is the deciding factor. It's just a different kind of market, but open all the same. Much in the same way that you need to get to the shop early to have the best choice of bread. The price of bread doesn't change as the shelves empty.

But the shop will sell the bread for whatever they think they can get for it. So as to maximise the amount the make from it.

Actually bread's a bad idea for this as it's frequently a loss leader to entice people in to buy far more lucrative items. But you know what I mean.

The point is the market sets the price. The shop sells it for whatever it think it will get and reaps the rewards (or not). The same is not true of social housing.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Prices ARE decided, and they are advertised. But the price is not the deciding factor, need (or more often a combination of need and length of time on the list) is the deciding factor. It's just a different kind of market, but open all the same. Much in the same way that you need to get to the shop early to have the best choice of bread. The price of bread doesn't change as the shelves empty.

Yes it does. If they have some left at the end of the day it is sold off cheap. If there is a shortage for any reason the price goes up. That really was a very poor example, you ended up destroying your own point.

wherediditallgothen

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

There's no manipulation. They just follow a different criteria. In much the same way that the same extra on a rolls royce costs more than it would on a mini.

There is manipulation. It's to make it affordable for those who at that time cannot afford the other options.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Yes it does. If they have some left at the end of the day it is sold off cheap. If there is a shortage for any reason the price goes up. That really was a very poor example, you ended up destroying your own point.

Maybe, over a period of time, the price of bread will fluctuate. But a supply/demand/price market, as you describe, would dictate that bread would be cheaper when the shelves are full, and more expensive as supply dwindles. With the shelf-life of bread, this would be a constantly fluctuating price. Yet when I buy bread at 7am, it is the same price as the loaf another shopper buys at 4pm.

Wee_Willy_Harris

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

There is manipulation. It's to make it affordable for those who at that time cannot afford the other options.

The whole POINT of social housing is to provide affordable rents and security of tenure.

Wee_Willy_Harris

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

But the shop will sell the bread for whatever they think they can get for it. So as to maximise the amount the make from it.

Actually bread's a bad idea for this as it's frequently a loss leader to entice people in to buy far more lucrative items. But you know what I mean.

The point is the market sets the price. The shop sells it for whatever it think it will get and reaps the rewards (or not). The same is not true of social housing.

I was demonstrating how different markets work, using bread as an example of a fluctuating market in which the price is a constant.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The whole POINT of social housing is to provide affordable rents and security of tenure.

And I think the whole reason for any disagreement is over the definition of affordable.

wherediditallgothen

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The whole POINT of social housing is to provide affordable rents and security of tenure.

Indeed it is. But security of tenure should not be for a whole lifetime regardless. It should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the advantages it provides are still needed, to guard against those whose circumstances change for the better continuing with those advantages when they don't need them.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

And I think the whole reason for any disagreement is over the definition of affordable.

Well, it seems to be accepted that, for many, private rents are UN affordable, so I guess you take them as the starting point and work back. Social Housing rents are set broadly in line with overall inflation, rather than private rents, which tend to follow house price inflation. The over extending housing market would indicate which is the folly. During the house price crash in the 1980's, and the more recent house price rationalisations, social rents continued to rise year on year. We may yet reach a point (doubtful, but possible) where social housing rents actually outstrip those in the private sector. Certainly, recent reductions in rents in the private sector have not been mirrored in the social sector.

Wee_Willy_Harris

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

Indeed it is. But security of tenure should not be for a whole lifetime regardless. It should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the advantages it provides are still needed, to guard against those whose circumstances change for the better continuing with those advantages when they don't need them.

Are you now proposing some sort of insecure security?