We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Uk 1960'S Vs 2000'S
Comments
-
This will fry some of your brains, sorry
UK 1970-1980
Population increased by 650,000 people
The country built 3,143,430 homes0 -
This will fry some of your brains, sorry
UK 1970-1980
Population increased by 650,000 people
The country built 3,143,430 homes
And for the decade 2010-2020 the UK is headed for
Population increase by ~4,900,000 people
Build an additional ~1,500,000 homes
So we are going to be building less than half the homes of the 1970s while we expect some 7-8x as much population growth
What I wonder will be the impact on rents and house prices?0 -
Where is the massive overcrowding and the huge rent increase?
The UK should build more houses IMHO. That they haven't doesn't seem to have caused big problems so far.0 -
Indeed. But that wouldn't suit the house price ramping agenda would it.you are actually correct even though you think it is crazy. Put it this way, if the UK had 3 people per house on average we would only need 63.5/3 = 21.2 million homes. But we have 27.5 million homes.
Or make it legal to share a house with someone other than your wife/husband.So according to your...3 per home is fine....the uk actually has a surplus of 6.3 million homes and we can knock 6 million down with no trouble....
As for "do we really need less than 2 people per house"...the answer is probably yes. Germany is now below 2 people per house and france is heading towards 2.0 and will likely go under it. As a nation ages it needs more housing per capita. Widows live at 1 to a house and something like 8 million homes in the uk only have 1 person in them. The only way to have a figure above 2 and a heathy market is to make it illegal to die at any other time than at the same time as your husband/wife
But no - the only possible conclusion we can come to is that prices must rise astromonically. There can be no other solution. Carry on ramping...0 -
the same people who have always built homes in the UK, the private contractors
or did you think the councils admin staff built them on their off days?
Oh dear having a bad day.
For the sake of the pedants, who paid and contracted the private sector to construct them?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Oh dear having a bad day.
For the sake of the pedants, who paid and contracted the private sector to construct them?
well maybe you could make the point more clearly
i.e. after the war, there were lots of building plots available due to the bombing and that councils used compulsory purchase powers to clear large parts of the cities hence making large amounts of land available
then they funded the private sector to build the properties.
thereafter they introduced draconic planning rules to restrict building is large areas of the country
grizzly conclusion is that the private sector can never build sufficient houses for the expanding needs/wants of the growing population0 -
well maybe you could make the point more clearly
i.e. after the war, there were lots of building plots available due to the bombing and that councils used compulsory purchase powers to clear large parts of the cities hence making large amounts of land available
then they funded the private sector to build the properties.
thereafter they introduced draconic planning rules to restrict building is large areas of the country
grizzly conclusion is that the private sector can never build sufficient houses for the expanding needs/wants of the growing population
Cells got it.
Just remind me when they did meet the needs.
On the basis they haven't they are unlikely to in the foreseeable future. As a good and growing proportion will not be able to fund a owner occupation purchase in any event there will always be a problem.
Government already funds a sizeable proportion of the private sector by ever increasing HB costs. It is only the mechanics that differ. Just remind me why it is better for the government to rent the stock it needs but it isn't recommended for individuals to rent."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Who built a lot of the houses in the 60s?
It would be more to the point to ask who didn't build the houses in the 2000s.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Cells got it.
Just remind me when they did meet the needs.
On the basis they haven't they are unlikely to in the foreseeable future. As a good and growing proportion will not be able to fund a owner occupation purchase in any event there will always be a problem.
Government already funds a sizeable proportion of the private sector by ever increasing HB costs. It is only the mechanics that differ. Just remind me why it is better for the government to rent the stock it needs but it isn't recommended for individuals to rent.
The reason we build too few properties in the combination of the planning laws and the mortgage restrictions and not any innate inability to build.
Whether the majority of people buy or rent is their own business and I have no particular view as to what people should do.
There will always be a need for rental property even if people have sufficient means to buy.
The reason I don't favour the state owning property is because of the adverse social consequences and the inflexibility of the arrangement.
There is no reason for 'ever' increasing HB than can't be addressed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards