What shortgage 421,306 homes built in a single year in france!

martinsurrey

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

So would the houses if they weren't subject to stingent building control.

Planning regulations and building regulations are two very different things but even building regs are too complex and restrictive.

I've seen planning get in a massive row over the shade of green on window frames, cost the developer £20k to sort out.

Seen a build have to be significantly changed as it was 8 inches too tall, (according to the planners).

seen somone spend £30k trying to restore a building but not get planning as they "didnt think it fits in".

so I'm MAINLY talking about planning restrictions, but building regs approvals are not ALL about safetey

While I agree that saftey is important, My victorian house would fail every single section of current building regulations, yet its lasted 120 years pretty well, I wonder how many modern houses will fair as well...

No toilet on the ground floor? doubt anyone will die.

A step between the outside and inside, again, no one will die.

Plug sockets 10" from the ground, see above

Stud walls not sound insulated in certain areas of a house, see above

but all are building regs fails on a new build.

(but fire regulations are there to stop people being killed)

grizzly1911

cells wrote: »

If you opt for a start date of ten years ago. Both have grown abiut the same rate with the uk speeding up and france slowing down

Any idea why that is?

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Not if we change the way pension schemes rely on taxing the next crop of workers. My personal pensions are all in place to support me without having to be carried by anyone else financially, but then I've never worked in the public sector and so I've never expected to be carried.

maybe true in booking keeping terms but not in terms of real resources

martinsurrey

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe true in booking keeping terms but not in terms of real resources

^this

the rate of return on your annuity is based on the rate of return of bonds and equities, which are based on how hard and successful the companies/economy is, which by the time you retire, are being worked at by...

the next generation...

they work, company makes money, pays dividends, pays your pension.

MFW_ASAP

martinsurrey wrote: »

^this

the rate of return on your annuity is based on the rate of return of bonds and equities, which are based on how hard and successful the companies/economy is, which by the time you retire, are being worked at by...

the next generation...

they work, company makes money, pays dividends, pays your pension.

or indeed don't buy an anuity but leave the pension in draw down and invested in a wide range of bonds, gilts and equities that span the globe. The next generation can then be anywhere in the world.

MFW_ASAP

martinsurrey wrote: »

Planning regulations and building regulations are two very different things but even building regs are too complex and restrictive.

I've seen planning get in a massive row over the shade of green on window frames, cost the developer £20k to sort out.

Seen a build have to be significantly changed as it was 8 inches too tall, (according to the planners).

seen somone spend £30k trying to restore a building but not get planning as they "didnt think it fits in".

so I'm MAINLY talking about planning restrictions, but building regs approvals are not ALL about safetey

While I agree that saftey is important, My victorian house would fail every single section of current building regulations, yet its lasted 120 years pretty well, I wonder how many modern houses will fair as well...

No toilet on the ground floor? doubt anyone will die.

A step between the outside and inside, again, no one will die.

Plug sockets 10" from the ground, see above

Stud walls not sound insulated in certain areas of a house, see above

but all are building regs fails on a new build.

(but fire regulations are there to stop people being killed)

A list of reasons why we now have building controls, instead of the free for all in the Victorian age.

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

It does seem that way. What we need is less population, not more houses.

Have you been reading Dan Brown's Inferno?

CLAPTON

martinsurrey wrote: »

^this

the rate of return on your annuity is based on the rate of return of bonds and equities, which are based on how hard and successful the companies/economy is, which by the time you retire, are being worked at by...

the next generation...

they work, company makes money, pays dividends, pays your pension.

indeed so

the working population provide all the goods and services required by the whole population (i.e. have to provide for the young, old and non working generally)

the proportion of the population that is actually working is projected to reduce.

so either the people working have to reduce their share of the cake or the non working portion have to reduce theirs.

it is thus likely that wages will rise as labour becomes more scarce and so the proportion of company turnover allocated to profit and dividend will fall.
This reducing 'funded' pensions.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

indeed so

the working population provide all the goods and services required by the whole population (i.e. have to provide for the young, old and non working generally)

the proportion of the population that is actually working is projected to reduce.

so either the people working have to reduce their share of the cake or the non working portion have to reduce theirs.

it is thus likely that wages will rise as labour becomes more scarce and so the proportion of company turnover allocated to profit and dividend will fall.
This reducing 'funded' pensions.

true the only savings which dont require a future workforce is baked beans in your cellar

everything else, shares bonds property gold etc requires a future economy.

hoever there are ways an economy can save the equivlant of baked beans. for instance a nuclear plant is like baked beans in that it takes a lot of effort to build today and little to run (vs coal and gas plants) in the future and will last a hundred years.

cells

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Any idea why that is?

It must be more than any one reason
The important part is that the world is globalising and its not something which is stoppable. you could slow it down perhaps but not stop it. In the uk the biggest "minority" will soon be mixed race persons and most of them are British + other as opposed to other + other.

However I do think long term, ie next 50-100 years or so, the UK will likely grow more than most imagine simply because the world will likely converge to English (it is already the most widely spoken language in the world if you include second languages) and as such there will be far more people who if they want to immigrate will consider the UK over say...Germany or Poland or xyz country....as not many non natives speak their languages.

An increasing population should not be seen as a negative but an opportunity to grow our nation in a way to make it even better. There are lots of options one which is interesting (although i am not saying this is what we should do but its just interesting) is to allow new London to grow to a mega city of perhaps 30 million. That would take the UK to 85 million without adding more people to anywhere else than London. Most people would react with ore or scepticism about London holding so many people however it could be done if the inside of the M25 was built at a density lower than Kensington and Chelsea (the most expensive area in the country and quite desirable). You could also make it a no car city as everywhere would have tube stations within walking distance.