Census 2011: UK at 63.1 million, up 4 million in 10 years

vivatifosi

kabayiri wrote: »

Could we see the return of high rise mark 2?
Obviously they will rebrand it to make it seem more acceptable.

We already are. There have been specialist companies buying up unloved 1960s office blocks for some time. Now there are towns in the south east where the office market has a reasonable supply but housing is in short supply and it makes sense to strip these buildings, re-face them and turn them into residential use.

For example Kodak's former HQ in Hemel Hempstead:
used to look like this: http://www.zippix.co.uk/11656/office-building-hemel-hempstead

Has now been turned into flats and looks like this:
http://www.livetheimage.com/kd-tower.php

GeorgeHowell

ecoguy wrote: »

I can tell you that the company I work for has tried to find British born workers to no end. There just aren't enough people with the computer skills we are looking for.

Also, as an immigrant myself (albeit one with A British parent) I really resent the implication that all immigrants are workshy. I pay my ridiculously high taxes/national insurance premiums so people can live on benefits. If I could opt out of the system and no pay in/but receive no benefits I would.

The problem in my mind is not one of immigrants/native born, but those who work and those who live in a culture of dependency.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant, which in hindsight was perhaps ambigously worded. I was trying to say that immigrants are brought in to do the jobs that need doing because too many UK-born are workshy and happy to be perpetual parasites living off Labour's ludicrous welfare regime.

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

For example, single adult immigrants, or old widows.... If the majority of population increase is from such segments of the population (and I think it is) then you'd need more than 1 house for every 2.3 people.

given that single adult immigrants (and certainly those on low incomes, although many on high incomes share) tend to live in high density housing i don't think this logically follows.

fact is, however you try to twist the numbers in your favour, the average size of households is falling. the average falling cannot be explained by more people living alone and therefore more people having to live in overcrowded housing because the net effect of that would be that the average would stay the same.

if there were insufficient houses being built, the average would go up to reflect this. it would not reduce because more people were living alone.

the only way that the average occupancy can fall is if there are sufficient houses being built for people to set up smaller households without a counterbalancing increase in overcrowding at the other end of the scale.

this is just basic maths.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chewmylegoff wrote: »

average

average

average

average

average

this is just basic maths.

No matter how often you state what the average is, it doesn't change the fact that the average is not what creates a shortage or surplus.

It's all about the distribution .

Example:

You have 10 houses, with a married couple living in 8 of them, a single woman (we'll call her Jane) living in one of them, and a family of three people living in the last one.

You have 20 people living in 10 houses, for an average of 2 people per house. Your housing need is for 10 houses. You have 10 houses. No problem.

If the husbands in three of the houses then divorce their wives, and all three of those wives go to stay with Jane until they can find their own place, you still have 20 people living in 10 houses, for an average of 2 people per house. But your housing need is for 13 houses. So you have a big problem.

The average per house is of no relevance.

A shortage now exists, despite the average staying the same.

If we only build one extra house for every 2.3 people we add (no matter what the need to build more), then the average per house must stay the same. That's just simple maths.

But that doesn't change the fact that we have a housing shortage.

chewmylegoff

Your example doesn't really mean much, as previously referred to, if the average household has decreased in size it can only be because the housing supply increased in order to allow it to do so. The fact that more people are living alone is reflected in the data, and that is why the average has fallen.

The average can only fall if there are enough houses to allow more people to live alone without a counter balancing effect of over crowding at the other end of the scale.

In your scenario the average number of people per household stays the same. In the real world it has fallen over the last decade.

There is literally no way you can look at this data and declare it shows that increased population has driven up house prices. It is incapable of doing that. You could argue that changes in the way we live, with more people living alone has impacted prices, but because the average has fallen the data certainly doesn't confirm that to be the case, and far more analysis is needed in order for any conclusions to be drawn either way (although if anything the raw data tends to point against your argument not for it).

vivatifosi

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If the husbands in three of the houses then divorce their wives, and all three of those wives go to stay with Jane until they can find their own place, you still have 20 people living in 10 houses, for an average of 2 people per house. But your housing need is for 13 houses. So you have a big problem.

Except it isn't a housing need, its a housing want. Single people don't have to live by themselves, they want to live by themselves. If they can't afford to, then they will share with others instead.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

vivatifosi wrote: »

Single people don't have to live by themselves, they want to live by themselves. If they can't afford to, then they will share with others instead.

Which is just another way of saying when demand for housing outstrips supply, prices will rise until the market rations the limited supply via price.

And that's exactly what has happened over the last decade.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which is just another way of saying when demand for housing outstrips supply, prices will rise until the market rations the limited supply via price.

And that's exactly what has happened over the last decade.

Sometimes, I want to puff of what you're smoking!

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which is just another way of saying when demand for housing outstrips supply, prices will rise until the market rations the limited supply via price.

And that's exactly what has happened over the last decade.

Pity the data suggests that it hasn't happened, that's the only flaw in your argument. Your position has become entirely ideological now, you're ignoring the numbers because they get in the way of your hypothesis. In fact it's worse than that as you are insisting that the data proves your hypothesis correct when it doesn't do anything of the sort.

John_Pierpoint

vivatifosi wrote: »

Except it isn't a housing need, its a housing want. Single people don't have to live by themselves, they want to live by themselves. If they can't afford to, then they will share with others instead.

Economists talk about "demand".
Put your money where your mouth is; everything else is just wishful thinking.

You heard it here first, the item is the last in the programme:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00vdd69

Losing young home buyers is hugely damaging to the broader economy. Housing contributes roughly 18 percent to U.S. gross domestic product, and a 2012 study by Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies on the state of the nation’s housing found that if household formation had held steady at its pre-recession rate, there would be an additional 1.3 million U.S. households.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-16/lost-generation-of-homeowners-may-just-be-on-hold

I am far from convinced that the flood of "no capital" immigrants under Labour will be sufficient to maintain demand and so prices in the housing sector.
However debasement of the currency just might do the trick in nominal terms.

Britain is certainly no magic economy that can walk on water.