Housing Shortage - Numbers of Middle Aged Lodgers Soaring

Nikkster

Just under 2 years ago (aged over 30) I moved to a new town for a job. I had an eye on buying a house so I didn't want to be tied into a 6- or 12- month AST. I also wanted to avoid shelling out for all the LA fees, and was trying to avoid driving across the country for viewings etc.

So I looked online and found lodgings. Clearly lodging isn't for everyone and has it's disadvantages, but living with someone who has a vested interest in making sure the boiler is working etc. can work well.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm fortunate enough to sit happily by and watch to see whether the housing shortage is addressed or, more likely, the British obsession with the symptom continues.

Yep.

There are times on this board where I know just how the medics that work in remote tribal areas in the Amazon must feel.....

Where they try to explain basic and incredibly simple concepts like the fact illness is caused by bacteria and spread by poor hygiene, not by spells and sorcery, while the local witch doctor jumps up and down screaming that they're wrong.

The usual suspects on here, the housing shortage deniers, the crashaholics, etc, they are the witch doctors of modern times.

People with vested interests in trying to make others believe that supply and demand isn't the main determinant of house prices.

Posters that make fanciful and absurd claims that by restricting the numbers of mortgages being issued, we can somehow enable more people to buy, because if we just have faith in their 'spirit gods' then prices must surely fall.

It's getting to the point where I frankly don't care.

If they want to doom the young to a life time of rent servitude, let them.

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is no maths that shows that there is a stable (non increasing ) population with current age ratios in the uK

There is maths to show that if a working age population maintains itself then a particular ratio of workers to retired can be engineered through either population size given a fixed retirement age, by retirement age given a fixed population, or by a combination of both given reasonable assumptions about population capability. This is all dependent however, on a stable life expectancy.

PasturesNew wrote: »

You can't maintain the ratio without a pyramid.

So long as people work a sufficient proportion of the average life expectancy, maintaining a ration of working to retired by population increase is mathematically convergent. You do not need a pyramid unless the retired population is inherently bigger than the working one, as even though the larger working age population will eventually retire, they die off at the same probability rate (so a larger population will have more deaths per year).

The current need to increase comes from that death probability rate shifting to be less steep and further back (double threat). It necessitates an increase in working age population that maintains itself in order to maintain the ratio of working to retired, but only while life expectancy is increasing.

The mathematical convergence is quite apparent even in crude population models. Life expectancy and the probability of dying at a particular age ensure that a uniform increase in population occurs in the older section of the population less. The corollary of that is that population reduction lessens the older section less too, thus worsening the burden on the working age population:



Since health and physical/mental ability isn't guaranteed with longevity, the sensible option is to increase population beyond the point that is reasonable to increase the retirement age. Infrastructure/jobs are not fixed in amount and can be increased to support such a population. If there is some hard upper limit to the number of people the UK can hold then we haven't hit it yet and I doubt we will as a result of this life expectancy increase.

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

There is maths to show that if a working age population maintains itself then a particular ratio of workers to retired can be engineered through either population size given a fixed retirement age, by retirement age given a fixed population, or by a combination of both given reasonable assumptions about population capability. This is all dependent however, on a stable life expectancy.



So long as people work a sufficient proportion of the average life expectancy, maintaining a ration of working to retired by population increase is mathematically convergent. You do not need a pyramid unless the retired population is inherently bigger than the working one, as even though the larger working age population will eventually retire, they die off at the same probability rate (so a larger population will have more deaths per year).

The current need to increase comes from that death probability rate shifting to be less steep and further back (double threat). It necessitates an increase in working age population that maintains itself in order to maintain the ratio of working to retired, but only while life expectancy is increasing.

The mathematical convergence is quite apparent even in crude population models. Life expectancy and the probability of dying at a particular age ensure that a uniform increase in population occurs in the older section of the population less. The corollary of that is that population reduction lessens the older section less too, thus worsening the burden on the working age population:



Since health and physical/mental ability isn't guaranteed with longevity, the sensible option is to increase population beyond the point that is reasonable to increase the retirement age. Infrastructure/jobs are not fixed in amount and can be increased to support such a population. If there is some hard upper limit to the number of people the UK can hold then we haven't hit it yet and I doubt we will as a result of this life expectancy increase.

we seem to agree that

Originally Posted by CLAPTON
there is no maths that shows that there is a stable (non increasing ) population with current age ratios in the uK

but there can be a stable sized population but the ratio by age group is not an independent variable


so we can't have Hamish's wish for a stable population and the same ratio by age of the present population.


whether that stable population will provide the desired level of goods and services I don't know.

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

but there can be a stable sized population but the ratio by age group is not an independent variable

While life expectancy increased you could indeed maintain a uniform sized population. This means that those working have to either work longer, or work harder/more productively to support the retired, and have to reduce their reproduction temporarily until the equilibrium point is reached, at which point they have to sustain themselves.

CLAPTON wrote: »

so we can't have Hamish's wish for a stable population and the same ratio by age of the present population.

Yes we can. If we increase the population to keep the ratio stable then when life expectancy stops increasing a self sustaining population would then remain stable at the present ratio. We are not at an equilibrium point because life expectancy is currently increasing. The fix for that is a Logan's Run style set-up, but I doubt that keeping a population fixed in size and ratio is that desirable.

CLAPTON wrote: »

whether that stable population will provide the desired level of goods and services I don't know.

Previously you have suggested that you think increased productivity or longer working life can or will support a more burdensome ratio, and that the risk that it may not may be acceptable so as not to require increased infrastructure. I put it to you that the need to keep the population size where it is now is not as desperate as the need to keep the ratio where it is, that the capacity for a greater population is available, that working for longer and increasing productivity will not be possible to the degree necessary, and that life expectancy will not continue to increase indefinitely.

There is definite room for multiple options when tackling this problem, but population increase is going to be a big part of the answer, and it is not mathematically divergent (or exponential, or a pyramid scheme), nor is it any where near it's upper bound of cost/benefit yet.

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

While life expectancy increased you could indeed maintain a uniform sized population. This means that those working have to either work longer, or work harder/more productively to support the retired, and have to reduce their reproduction temporarily until the equilibrium point is reached, at which point they have to sustain themselves.



Yes we can. If we increase the population to keep the ratio stable then when life expectancy stops increasing a self sustaining population would then remain stable at the present ratio. We are not at an equilibrium point because life expectancy is currently increasing. The fix for that is a Logan's Run style set-up, but I doubt that keeping a population fixed in size and ratio is that desirable.



Previously you have suggested that you think increased productivity or longer working life can or will support a more burdensome ratio, and that the risk that it may not may be acceptable so as not to require increased infrastructure. I put it to you that the need to keep the population size where it is now is not as desperate as the need to keep the ratio where it is, that the capacity for a greater population is available, that working for longer and increasing productivity will not be possible to the degree necessary, and that life expectancy will not continue to increase indefinitely.

There is definite room for multiple options when tackling this problem, but population increase is going to be a big part of the answer, and it is not mathematically divergent (or exponential, or a pyramid scheme), nor is it any where near it's upper bound of cost/benefit yet.

let me say it again




we can't stabilise the population with the CURRENT population ratios.




we will be able to stabilise the population with a fixed ratio by age but we will have no control over the ratio : whatever it will be it will be.


Hamish's dream is not became a reality.




As far as my own view is concerned
- I see no immediate shortage of labour so I see no reason to import people now.


- importing people now will simply make the problem worse in 30-40 years time as those people will then be part of the aged 'problem'


- I believe we can achieve a lot by better utilising the older people currently forced to 'retire ' early and we can 'encourage' higher employment amongst the youth


-I see no risks about delaying massive immigration until we need more workers


- I see lots of downsides to increasing population size as I would prefer to keep our beautiful places as they are, I would like our towns to stabilise in size, I won't want our beeches to be too uncrowded etc


-we don't need 500,000 new immigrant a year even if 250,000 existing depart.


-there is no risk to delay : lets wait and see.

maddermanblue1_2

Hey! I'm a lodger too, 34 years old not quite 40... The only reason I'm a lodger (I can comfortably rent a flat btw) is so I can save toward a home of my own.
My rent includes all the bills of is origionally £100, but more likely approx £40 a week as I'm always doing DIY stuff for the live in landlords around the house. I have a good full time job and fit DIY stuff around my working hours and I like DIY in this big old house in London. :beer:

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

let me say it again




we can't stabilise the population with the CURRENT population ratios.

Yes we can, the current ratio is about 4:1, and we can keep it at that ratio. This is what ratio means.

CLAPTON wrote: »

we will be able to stabilise the population with a fixed ratio by age but we will have no control over the ratio : whatever it will be it will be.

This indicates that you have some misunderstanding of what ratio means.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Hamish's dream is not became a reality.

Hamish's dream is become good grammar.

CLAPTON wrote: »

As far as my own view is concerned
- I see no immediate shortage of labour so I see no reason to import people now.

I see a currently increasing life expectancy and as such whatever we produce is shared between more people. This is happening right now. To track the equilibrium point the increase should be made while life expectancy is increasing, not afterwards. This should happen for a number of reasons, mainly stability during transition and partly because it takes time to do.

CLAPTON wrote: »

- importing people now will simply make the problem worse in 30-40 years time as those people will then be part of the aged 'problem'

No, they won't. They will be part of a larger population overall with a similar working age to retired ratio, thus the number of people supporting each of them will be unchanged. When life expectancy stops increasing such a population would be stable as the number of people who die each year will settle at a higher number that is proportional to the population increase, even though those deaths occur systematically later.

CLAPTON wrote: »

- I believe we can achieve a lot by better utilising the older people currently forced to 'retire ' early and we can 'encourage' higher employment amongst the youth

Working longer is only viable if you're capable. Living longer does not necessarily equate to being able to work longer.

CLAPTON wrote: »

-I see no risks about delaying massive immigration until we need more workers

How about the risk of not being able to get them all at once when it's past due?

CLAPTON wrote: »

- I see lots of downsides to increasing population size as I would prefer to keep our beautiful places as they are, I would like our towns to stabilise in size, I won't want our beeches to be too uncrowded etc

If not wanting the population to increase is an end in itself in your mind, even at the cost of a reduced quality of life in terms of working time and effort, but at the supposed benefit of not being crowded, then I suggest you get into the nitty gritty and figure out exactly how much human capacity the UK actually has and back it up. Because simply stating that's we're crowded isn't gonna cut it.

CLAPTON wrote: »

-we don't need 500,000 new immigrant a year even if 250,000 existing depart.

Not if it's just the retired population departing ...

CLAPTON wrote: »

-there is no risk to delay : lets wait and see.

No, let's move with the equilibrium point, because there's plenty of risk to delaying. The risks include not being able to support the aged population, and that if we find we can't support them that we are unable to attract the required working age population as the quality of life in the UK has deteriorated and doesn't draw people any more.

Imagine all that space but no-one has any time or resources to enjoy it.

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

Yes we can, the current ratio is about 4:1, and we can keep it at that ratio. This is what ratio means.



This indicates that you have some misunderstanding of what ratio means.



Hamish's dream is become good grammar.




I see a currently increasing life expectancy and as such whatever we produce is shared between more people. This is happening right now. To track the equilibrium point the increase should be made while life expectancy is increasing, not afterwards. This should happen for a number of reasons, mainly stability during transition and partly because it takes time to do.



No, they won't. They will be part of a larger population overall with a similar working age to retired ratio, thus the number of people supporting each of them will be unchanged. When life expectancy stops increasing such a population would be stable as the number of people who die each year will settle at a higher number that is proportional to the population increase, even though those deaths occur systematically later.




Working longer is only viable if you're capable. Living longer does not necessarily equate to being able to work longer.




How about the risk of not being able to get them all at once when it's past due?



If not wanting the population to increase is an end in itself in your mind, even at the cost of a reduced quality of life in terms of working time and effort, but at the supposed benefit of not being crowded, then I suggest you get into the nitty gritty and figure out exactly how much human capacity the UK actually has and back it up. Because simply stating that's we're crowded isn't gonna cut it.



Not if it's just the retired population departing ...



No, let's move with the equilibrium point, because there's plenty of risk to delaying. The risks include not being able to support the aged population, and that if we find we can't support them that we are unable to attract the required working age population as the quality of life in the UK has deteriorated and doesn't draw people any more.

Imagine all that space but no-one has any time or resources to enjoy it.

-we can't maintain the current age distribution and maintain the same total population


-we can attempt to manage the ratio of workers to non workers by changing the retirement age and ensure more of the unemployed work


-if there is a shortage of goods and service to meet he demand then that should show itself as a shortage of labour


currently we do no have a labour shortage; if the labour market tightens than we have a lot of scope to meet that need by reducing unemployment and allowing older people to work


we don't need to import 500,000 each year to do that.


-when I say the un-necessary immigration will add to the aging problem in 30-40 years I mean whilst maintaining current population total.


-I don't see that importing huge numbers of immigrant now because we may be short in 20 years time is sensible.
If we need them in the future of course there is a risk they don't come because there are more attractive alternatives; however there is a risk that people might leave for those same more attractive alternatives.


-in any event, the fewer we are the less we will need to import.


- my issue is exactly about the quality of live : you seem to equate the quality of life with GDP (a false measure)




-there are no substantial risks in delaying massive immigration:

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

-we can't maintain the current age distribution and maintain the same total population


-we can attempt to manage the ratio of workers to non workers by changing the retirement age and ensure more of the unemployed work


-if there is a shortage of goods and service to meet he demand then that should show itself as a shortage of labour


currently we do no have a labour shortage; if the labour market tightens than we have a lot of scope to meet that need by reducing unemployment and allowing older people to work


we don't need to import 500,000 each year to do that.


-when I say the un-necessary immigration will add to the aging problem in 30-40 years I mean whilst maintaining current population total.


-I don't see that importing huge numbers of immigrant now because we may be short in 20 years time is sensible.
If we need them in the future of course there is a risk they don't come because there are more attractive alternatives; however there is a risk that people might leave for those same more attractive alternatives.


-in any event, the fewer we are the less we will need to import.


- my issue is exactly about the quality of live : you seem to equate the quality of life with GDP (a false measure)




-there are no substantial risks in delaying massive immigration:

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that it is desirable to maintain the current population level, but you don't actually substantiate why that should be so beyond things being somehow worse if we don't. Likewise, the fact that there isn't a shortage of labour doesn't disprove that there is a problem. There's still a deficit in what the UK produces vs what it consumes, hence rising debt. A depressed labour market improving might make up some of the slack, but that level is based on the equilibrium point we are currently moving away from. Your continual assertions that working longer or more productively can make up the shortfall are also unsubstantiated (i.e. you just say they could, not how it's achievable). The idea that we will face a shortage in the future that can be addressed suddenly is also laughable. The problem is gradual, and should be addressed as such.

It's clear that you've got it into your head that more people equates to worse, but the fact is that increasing life expectancy increases the proportion of people not being productive without increasing the productivity. It's all very well valuing space, but you're ignoring everything but the space. Furthermore, plenty of people dispute that we don't have enough space for population increase and enjoyment.

Advocating not doing anything until the ratio has shifted substantially risks not being able to move it back easily or even at all through making us an unattractive prospect. Moving with the increase in life expectancy to maintain the ratio is achievable. The fact that life expectancy is increasing is moving the ratio of working age to retired in a burdensome director for the working population. Are you wilfully refusing to recognise that it won't just happen all at once? Do you not get that life expectancy has all ready increased and people are alive now that wouldn't have previously been expected to be? That they are being supported by a working age population that as a result essentially has more people to support because they didn't die?

Your position appears to be for the population to work harder and longer and hope we can keep up with the life expectancy increase without immigration. I say that will reduce quality of life in terms of work life balance (i.e. the ability to enjoy all that space) and GDP, AND cause logistic and stability problems when we have to fall back on immigration. The logical option is to grow with the problem. I'm willing to bet there'll be space left over to enjoy too, once the population size has stabilised.