Amazingly Niave Theory

chucky

the.ciscokid wrote: »

So you don't want to or cannot answer the questions then (other than to ask me to google effective demand).

it's been explained to you not only on this thread but others too.

please don't try and use me for therapy.

ps. that drama queen routine when you give out some 'abuse' and when you get a bit back and complain is comical btw...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Ahh, so it's more workers per household, what with all the new jobs we are creating. Are we going to be having kids in the future, or will families all have lodgers, to provide the extra cash required?

Clearly you're struggling to comprehend what should be a fairly simple concept.

Let's break it down a bit further.....

1. When population is growing at 400,000 per year, new households are being created at 250,000 a year, and we're only building somewhere around 100,000 houses a year, what is the annual housing supply deficit?

2. When population increases faster than new houses are built, what is the inevitable result in terms of average household occupancy numbers?

3. Which household has a higher income, a household with one person on benefits, or a household with three people on benefits?

4. Which household has a higher income, a household with one single average wage earner, or a household with four single average wage earners?

StevieJ

Cleaver wrote: »

The trouble with this theory is that without immigration we wouldn't be able to employ the unskilled and skilled workers from abroad that fill the many positions that cannot (or will not) be filled by people from the UK. So stoping immigration would probably cause more problems that it would solve, and I can't really think of any problems it would solve.

And just as a bit of a pedantic point, we can't 'close our borders' as we're part of the EU.

So were Germany and the others when they wouldn't let the Poles in.

Cleaver

StevieJ wrote: »

So were Germany and the others when they wouldn't let the Poles in.

There's a real simplistic irony about Germany not letting people from Poland in to their country isn't there?

StevieJ

Cleaver wrote: »

There's a real simplistic irony about Germany not letting people from Poland in to their country isn't there?

Yup I see what you mean :eek: , but they did make an exception for good footballers

diable

StevieJ wrote: »

So were Germany and the others when they wouldn't let the Poles in.

Seeing as they invaded Poland killed 6 million Poles in the invasion and in extermination camps then they may now be suffering from a guilt complex the same as the British should be in selling the Poles off to the Russians and 40 years of slavery under Communism. You reap what you sow......

the.ciscokid

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Clearly you're struggling to comprehend what should be a fairly simple concept.

I don't think it is as simple as you make out, but thanks for your concern.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Let's break it down a bit further.....

1. When population is growing at 400,000 per year, new households are being created at 250,000 a year, and we're only building somewhere around 100,000 houses a year, what is the annual housing supply deficit?

What is currently happening with these 150,000 more households we must be getting at present?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

2. When population increases faster than new houses are built, what is the inevitable result in terms of average household occupancy numbers?

What is the inevitable result in quality of life, due to strain on infrastructure? If this decreases, will people pay more for it?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

3. Which household has a higher income, a household with one person on benefits, or a household with three people on benefits?

Benefits are being, and are likely to be cut further are they not?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

4. Which household has a higher income, a household with one single average wage earner, or a household with four single average wage earners?

If conditions decrease, do workers give up, when their life could be a lot easier on benefits? As tax increases, and inflations reduces purchasing power, do people have more money to spend on housing?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the.ciscokid wrote: »

I don't think it is as simple as you make out, but thanks for your concern.

Its not only simple, it's an absolute certainty.

What is currently happening with these 150,000 more households we must be getting at present?

Two things.

1. Those that can't afford housing are living in increasingly overcrowded conditions, or in temporary accomodation paid for at great expense from the state.

2. Those that can afford it are moving into, and decreasing the availability of, private sector housing. Both rented housing availability and for-sale housing availability are well down from 2007 levels. And rents have been soaring all year and are now at an all time high as a result.

What is the inevitable result in quality of life, due to strain on infrastructure? If this decreases, will people pay more for it?

Housing is a primary need.

People will pay whatever they must, to the exclusion of almost anything else but food, etc.

Benefits are being, and are likely to be cut further are they not?

Yes, but not by nearly enough to overcome the increase in demand for housing.

To illustrate the point, (and ignoring existing stock).... If we only build a third of the housing we need, then the occupancy per house would rise by 300%. So the income per house for that segment of population would rise by 300%. Now in reality, that increase is diluted across existing stock as well, but the point remains that when population increases and we don't build enough houses to keep up, then it is inevitable there will be more people living in each house than there are today, and therefore more income per house.

So a few percent decrease in housing benefits is relatively meaningless overall.

If conditions decrease, do workers give up, when their life could be a lot easier on benefits? As tax increases, and inflations reduces purchasing power, do people have more money to spend on housing?

You miss the point entirely.

An individual may not.

A household composed of more earners/claimants will.

The numbers I quoted are cold hard facts. It is happening now.

There is no speculation involved.... No subjective opinion at all.

As long as we build but a third of the houses we need, the cost of housing be that house prices and/or rents will inevitably rise. Sure, you can delay it or temporarily lessen it through mortgage rationing or rent benefits cuts, but you can't prevent it.

diable

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Its not only simple, it's an absolute certainty.




Two things.

1. Those that can't afford housing are living in increasingly overcrowded conditions, or in temporary accomodation paid for at great expense from the state.

2. Those that can afford it are moving into, and decreasing the availability of, private sector housing. Both rented housing availability and for-sale housing availability are well down from 2007 levels. And rents have been soaring all year and are now at an all time high as a result.



Housing is a primary need.

People will pay whatever they must, to the exclusion of almost anything else but food, etc.



Yes, but not by nearly enough to overcome the increase in demand for housing.

If we only build a third of the housing we need, then the occupancy per house must rise by 300%. So the income per house for that additional segment of population (ignoring existing occupiers) will rise by 300%.

So a few percent decrease in housing benefits is relatively meaningless overall.



You miss the point entirely.

An individual may not.

A household composed of more earners/claimants will.

The numbers I quoted are cold hard facts. It is happening now.

There is no speculation involved.... No subjective opinion at all.

As long as we build but a third of the houses we need, the cost of housing be that house prices and/or rents will inevitably rise. Sure, you can delay it or temporarily lessen it through mortgage rationing or rent benefits cuts, but you can't prevent it.

Does that mean we BTL's can earn more?

AndyGuil

With house prices set to go down i'm not going to buy a property. I consider it a home and an investment. I can rent a home while I wait for the prices to come down. I currently have a 25% deposit for a flat where i currently live in London (zone 2/3 border). Whilst i'm aware London prices have not gone down, but that seems to be certain areas are holding the average up, many areas have still gone down. Where I am has gone down 7% in the last 6 months. FTBs are not able to buy the properties aimed at them such as flats and hence they are going down.