Is this right?

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Quite a while but seeing as we dont live in a perfect world and we live in one ran by bankers then thats just the way it is.

If they could save half of their take home pay if would take them 20 years and I doubt they would be able to save that amount you have to accept that some people will never be able to afford to buy their own home. I think the highest home ownership has been in this country is 72% so even in those times 28% didn’t.

vivatifosi

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Still plenty of room though.

Surrey population density = 667 per sq km
Monaco population density = 16,923 per sq km

Monaco's population density only works in small, highly desirable areas. If you visit Monaco there's no agriculture/food production, no industry to speak of, a lot of the infrastructure has had to be built underground and most of the workers get the bus/train in from France and Italy to serve the wealthy. There are very few parks and open spaces and while its an interesting place to visit (I was there last week) I wouldn't want to live there. It isn't a sustainable model for a larger economy that isn't a tax haven.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Pathological.

But factual.

Wee_Willy_Harris

vivatifosi wrote: »

Monaco's population density only works in small, highly desirable areas. If you visit Monaco there's no agriculture/food production, no industry to speak of, a lot of the infrastructure has had to be built underground and most of the workers get the bus/train in from France and Italy to serve the wealthy. There are very few parks and open spaces and while its an interesting place to visit (I was there last week) I wouldn't want to live there. It isn't a sustainable model for a larger economy that isn't a tax haven.

But it's a fine example of land usage for housing. Of course I accept that it is at the extreme, but to say that leafy Surrey is full is equally disingenuous.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I was just pointing out that there is still scope for expansion.

And im pointing out that at some point there will be no more room left to expand, how are you going to twist this now, you can see the point im getting at but you just refuse to even think about it due to your pathological need to be right.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

The population is expanding but not due to people having loads of kids.

Oh ok that makes perfect sense.

Jimmy_31

ukcarper wrote: »

If they could save half of their take home pay if would take them 20 years and I doubt they would be able to save that amount you have to accept that some people will never be able to afford to buy their own home. I think the highest home ownership has been in this country is 72% so even in those times 28% didn’t.

Are you factoring in pay rises and interest on the savings.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

But factual.

Your facts come out of legislation, guide lines,handbooks, i can see with my own eyes that the rules you like to base everything you say on are often ignored.

ukcarper

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Are you factoring in pay rises and interest on the savings.

No but I'm not factoring house price rises or inflation. Do you really think someone earning £15k a year in an area where the cheapest house is £180k can buy.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

And im pointing out that at some point there will be no more room left to expand, how are you going to twist this now, you can see the point im getting at but you just refuse to even think about it due to your pathological need to be right.

There is no risk of the available land running out in the foreseeable future. The path to exhausting the available land started when the first human built the first mud hut in the UK. If we follow your logic, we should still be living in caves.