HPI to outstrip pay rises 'for years to come'

CLAPTON

the_flying_pig wrote: »

these NIMBY-ist concerns just come across as, well, boomers eager to ensure that the opportunities they had aren't offered to future generations.

true most boomers I know have indeed don't that


the opportunity for only 5% to go to Uni has been withdrawn


the opportunity to catch polio has been withdrawn


the opportunity to live in freezing non central heated houses has been largely withdrawn


the opportunity to save the planet by being brought up in a car free family has largely been withdrawn




and on and on

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

true most boomers I know have indeed don't that


the opportunity for only 5% to go to Uni has been withdrawn


the opportunity to catch polio has been withdrawn


the opportunity to live in freezing non central heated houses has been largely withdrawn


the opportunity to save the planet by being brought up in a car free family has largely been withdrawn

and on and on

So has the opportunity to contract the black death.

But I don't see how it's in any way relevant to this discussion, much like your points.

You seem to be just "saying things".

cells

Conrad wrote: »

Where I live the market towns are being expanded fast, whole villages are being subsumed into mega housing projects, roads are being built and it just feels as if we've all gone mad in our zeal to radically alter the tone and feel of once magical spaces.


Where will this all end? Is there nothing that will halt the rise and rise of the Human swarm? What sort of place are we handing on? Are we custodians and guardians or or simply consumers of the landscape?


I see this happening right across the south east.


And then of course how do we know all this building will make much of dent in demand anyway, wont migrants simply keep coming?

what percentage of migrants do you think look up house prices before deciding to emigrate?

Also all the anti building points can be made if you go back ten years and the same again ten year before that and the same again and the same again...go back five decades and you've insulted about 12 million homes and their inhabitants that you'd rather be homeless

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So has the opportunity to contract the black death.

But I don't see how it's in any way relevant to this discussion, much like your points.

You seem to be just "saying things".

thank you for your kind words


you don't often phase my posts in this fulsome way

cells

the_flying_pig wrote: »

wrong thread?

but, anyway, if you' were arguing for a limit to human breeding then, well, there might be a serious case to be made, but you seem to only be interested in whether or not we house people [and/or which country we house them in].

this is plain daft. the environmental damage caused by replacing a small patch of of grassland with a house is miniscule compared with all of the fossil fuels burned, animals eaten, etc, by a person over their lifetime.

these NIMBY-ist concerns just come across as, well, boomers eager to ensure that the opportunities they had aren't offered to future generations.

Abiut half the homes that exist in the uk were built since the 1960s and virtually all the arguments for anti building were just as valid then as they are now which means anyone who holds them to be true also thinks it was a grave mistake to build half the homes in the UK

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But I don't see how it's in any way relevant to this discussion, much like your points.

LOL - the point is flying over your head.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

LOL - the point is flying over your head.

So what's the point?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So what's the point?

Whenever the past gets a mention the present day doom goggles get replaced with the 'rosy tints'. It gets worse because the 'rosy tints' are highly selective - if there's the possibility that house prices were cheaper at a point in the past that trumps anything that was less than perfect in those good old days. It's a cherry picking of the past.

My grandmother lost her mother to TB at the age of four - never heard her complain - probably because the house she later purchased only cost a few hundred quid.

Probably a little too subtle for you.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Whenever the past gets a mention the present day doom goggles get replaced with the 'rosy tints'. It gets worse because the 'rosy tints' are highly selective - if there's the possibility that house prices were cheaper at a point in the past that trumps anything that was less than perfect in those good old days. It's a cherry picking of the past.

My grandmother lost her mother to TB at the age of four - never heard her complain - probably because the house she later purchased only cost a few hundred quid.

Probably a little too subtle for you.

As was claptons post.

Of which I see no mention of pensions, for example. Something which was better back then, amongst many other things.

It's strange. I haven't picked anything, clapton did....yet you accuse me of cherry picking.

Well cherry pick pensions. Cherry pick spacious council homes, with gardens. We'll go from there.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well cherry pick pensions. .

Ok then....

Growth in real terms (inflation adjusted) disposable income of retired and non-retired households along with GDP as a comparison......



You really do make this too easy sometimes Dev......;)