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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
"Any sane person should worry about what will happen when IR's rise"
Comments
-
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I am comparing, theoretically, zero immigration with some level of immigration, everything else remaining constant.
Then the number of homes would be unchanging as would the number of people. Or do you actually mean "everything else remaining at the rate it is at now" rather than "constant"? Because those would be two different things, and the former would still be exclusionary. Actually, don't answer that, I've stopped caring.
Ring fencing a population off is essentially no different to excluding people, and is still not equivalent in any way to increasing supply or having "more" to go around even if the non-excluded population was to naturally decline over time.If you think of it as 'us' verses 'them', then it's probably your side that are the villains.0 -
Then the number of homes would be unchanging as would the number of people. Or do you actually mean "everything else remaining at the rate it is at now" rather than "constant"? Because those would be two different things, and the former would still be exclusionary. Actually, don't answer that, I've stopped caring.
Ring fencing a population off is essentially no different to excluding people, and is still not equivalent in any way to increasing supply or having "more" to go around even if the non-excluded population was to naturally decline over time.
how can you possibly think all things staying the same that reduced immigration wouldnt help the situation, Houses are being built thats a fact.
however it is hard to match house building to people reaching the legal age and wanting to buy / rent + the amount of immigrants coming in.
to put it simply we have more people crossing the threshold / wanting to buy / rent than we have people dieing / moving in together.
only solution is to reduce how many people extra a year NEED a house. or build a LOT more houses every year0 -
how can you possibly think all things staying the same that reduced immigration wouldnt help the situation, Houses are being built thats a fact.
All things being "the same" in the sense of "constant" means "no change in number of houses or population". "The same" in the sense "continues as is" but with less immigration may lead to less demand, but that is not the same as "help[ing] the situation" or there being "more houses".however it is hard to match house building to people reaching the legal age and wanting to buy / rent + the amount of immigrants coming in.
to put it simply we have more people crossing the threshold / wanting to buy / rent than we have people dieing / moving in together.
Or to put it even more simply, more demand than supply.only solution is to reduce how many people extra a year NEED a house. or build a LOT more houses every year
That is two possible solutions, so clearly one of them is not the "only" solution. The first, reducing demand, is not the same as the second, increasing supply.
The "situation" is that opposition to immigration is (badly) justified through suggesting either that stopping immigration would mean more houses for the existing population (untrue as there would not be more houses), or that there would be a greater availability of houses to the remaining population while completely omitting the fact that this is at the cost of excluding some of the existing population (presumably based on some perceived birthright).
Quite aside from any opinion I have on whether or not we should increase supply, decrease demand, or both, I can at least tell the difference between the two.If you think of it as 'us' verses 'them', then it's probably your side that are the villains.0 -
Then the number of homes would be unchanging as would the number of people. Or do you actually mean "everything else remaining at the rate it is at now" rather than "constant"? Because those would be two different things, and the former would still be exclusionary. Actually, don't answer that, I've stopped caring.
Ring fencing a population off is essentially no different to excluding people, and is still not equivalent in any way to increasing supply or having "more" to go around even if the non-excluded population was to naturally decline over time.
I meant constant, in order to isolate the immigration effect. Of course it's theoretical only. But logically immigration is going to increase the pressure on housing unless house building compensates fully. A lot of people don't accept that the alleged benefits of mass immigration compensate for this and for other negative consequences. A lot of them are going to vote UKIP. Major party politicians have therefore started listening, but have yet to bring themselves to actually do anything substantial. Apart from a small minority of leftie nutters, at least few people are still calling anyone expressing such views a racist.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
-
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I meant constant, in order to isolate the immigration effect. Of course it's theoretical only. But logically immigration is going to increase the pressure on housing unless house building compensates fully.
Well, not necessarily. My wife, for example, lives with me, so we don't need any more houses than had she not moved here.
Also, if the Mail is to be believed, these immigrants are such a problem that half the readership is planning on upping sticks and heading to Australia, where, ironically, they are much more strict on immigration...0 -
I looked at emigrating to Oz some years ago. They would not have me. (Over 40 at the time).Well, not necessarily. My wife, for example, lives with me, so we don't need any more houses than had she not moved here.
Also, if the Mail is to be believed, these immigrants are such a problem that half the readership is planning on upping sticks and heading to Australia, where, ironically, they are much more strict on immigration...0 -
I looked at emigrating to Oz some years ago. They would not have me. (Over 40 at the time).
Probably did you a favour. I'm totally convinced that it's not the paradise that it likes to portray itself as.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
New research pubished today, backing up what Vince has stated, estimates that by 2018, 2.3m households will face potentially unaffordable mortgage payments.
Scary stuff
http://www.citywire.co.uk/money/is-your-mortgage-set-to-become-a-prison/a752270Resolution Foundation said borrowers risked becoming ‘mortgage prisoners’, where they did not have sufficient equity or income to switch their mortgage to a better deal, alongside the risk of becoming ‘highly geared’, where rising rates mean monthly mortgage repayments will eat into at least one-third of disposable income by 2018, when interest rates are expected to climb to 3%.
One-in-10 unlucky homeowners will find themselves in both categories, unable to switch away from a mortgage – due to low housing equity or self-employment – and hit by rising interest rates. These borrowers will likely be stuck on uncompetitive ‘standard variable rates’ which mortgages are defaulted to when a loan term ends.
Looking at these problem groups separately, the think tank says 2.3 million households – or a quarter of mortgaged households – face ‘potentially unaffordable repayments’ by 2018, double the number in this position today. A further 3.5 million risk becoming mortgage prisoners over the same time frame.0 -
A pretty accurate analysis I would say. Avoiding a crisis would depends on keeping interest rates low. And that would depend on keeping inflation low. Government would have to tackle uncompetitive cartels that regularly screw us with unjustified price rises :- energy, rail, fuel etc., and resist the temptation to increase taxes and try to inflate away public debt. Trade unions would have to moderate wage demands. Institutional shareholders would have to ease the pressure on companies for short term profits. Even with modest rate rises a lot of households would still have to seriously tighten their belts :- the Starbucks, the gym subs, the riding lessons, the skiing holidays, the new Chelsea tractors, the Michelin * meals out, might all have to go.
Can anyone see all of that happening ? Or are we heading for another credit crunch ?No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards