Houses needed for additional 239,000 people

Rinoa

Says BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14663354

Net migration rose by 21% last year, with 239,000 more people arriving in the UK than those leaving, the Office for National Statistics has revealed.
In 2009, the total for net migration had stood at 198,000.


The government has pledged to reduce net migration to the "tens of thousands" by 2015.


As part of that drive, the number of skilled workers from outside the European Economic Area who are allowed into the UK each year is being capped.

Graham_Devon

Not what the BBC said at all then.

Rinoa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not what the BBC said at all then.

No. That was my interpretation of the article.

Which regretfully allows you to divert attention away from the important bit ~ as you attempt to do on so many topics.

Pimperne1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not what the BBC said at all then.

Won't they need houses then?

System

Rinoa wrote: »

No. That was my interpretation of the article.

Which regretfully allows you to divert attention away from the important bit ~ as you attempt to do on so many topics.

He's only able to trash threads because people respond.

Surely the easiest way to reduce net immigration is to reduce the incentive in the first place?

Road_Hog

Joeskeppi wrote: »

He's only able to trash threads because people respond.

Surely the easiest way to reduce net immigration is to reduce the incentive in the first place?

The three main parties don't want to reduce immigration. It is not going to happen.

kabayiri

Road_Hog wrote: »

The three main parties don't want to reduce immigration. It is not going to happen.

I suspect you're right.

Increasing labour force is a simple way to create oversupply and hence force down wage costs.

The question begs, does the government believe there is export business we could win if overheads reduced ?

Loughton_Monkey

Right. So net migration in 2010 was 239,000.

And this leads to a 'conclusion' that we need the equivalent number of extra houses.

I am always intrigued to learn how other peoples' minds work, and can often work it out. This one leaves me a little bit stumped as to what 'logic' is applying. What I am asking myself is:

1. Were this to be true, then there must be 239,000 people who have been living in tents, cardboard boxes, spare rooms.... for any time between 8 months and 20 months. Quite frankly, I hadn't noticed this.

2. Up until now, I had thought that 'net migration' is just one of the many factors that determine how many extra houses are required. For example, I had assumed it could also be influenced by:

• The number of people dying, less the number of people being born.
• The number of houses already being built, less the number that are pulled down or derelict.
• The change in the number of people, already living in a house, but who now want their own - or vice versa.

Where is my own logic going wrong?

Pimperne1

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Right. So net migration in 2010 was 239,000.

And this leads to a 'conclusion' that we need the equivalent number of extra houses.

I am always intrigued to learn how other peoples' minds work, and can often work it out. This one leaves me a little bit stumped as to what 'logic' is applying. What I am asking myself is:

1. Were this to be true, then there must be 239,000 people who have been living in tents, cardboard boxes, spare rooms.... for any time between 8 months and 20 months. Quite frankly, I hadn't noticed this.

2. Up until now, I had thought that 'net migration' is just one of the many factors that determine how many extra houses are required. For example, I had assumed it could also be influenced by:

• The number of people dying, less the number of people being born.
• The number of houses already being built, less the number that are pulled down or derelict.
• The change in the number of people, already living in a house, but who now want their own - or vice versa.

Where is my own logic going wrong?

Because you misread the thread title?

Rinoa

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Right. So net migration in 2010 was 239,000.

And this leads to a 'conclusion' that we need the equivalent number of extra houses.

I am always intrigued to learn how other peoples' minds work, and can often work it out. This one leaves me a little bit stumped as to what 'logic' is applying. What I am asking myself is:

1. Were this to be true, then there must be 239,000 people who have been living in tents, cardboard boxes, spare rooms.... for any time between 8 months and 20 months. Quite frankly, I hadn't noticed this.

2. Up until now, I had thought that 'net migration' is just one of the many factors that determine how many extra houses are required. For example, I had assumed it could also be influenced by:

• The number of people dying, less the number of people being born.
• The number of houses already being built, less the number that are pulled down or derelict.
• The change in the number of people, already living in a house, but who now want their own - or vice versa.

Where is my own logic going wrong?

ONS has worked it all out for you.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=6

470,000 rise in annual UK population is the latest figure we have. We don't have many living in shanty towns or cardboard boxes - yet. But pressure is put on the existing housing with more people sharing, as seen on another topic.

Naturally the fact that most will pay extra to have a home to themselves means price falls are unlikely anytime soon.

Generali

The solution seems obvious to me. Allow more houses to be built.

The price of a house in general = cost of land + cost of house + premium for being allowed to build.

The last part is the big negotiable and it's the bit that is skewed by the Government. Let people build houses and the builders make money and buyers save money. It sounds like a winner to me.