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!
Radio 4: Bricks and Bubbles
Comments
-
-
sennypijama wrote: »That would depend on whether the decline in Housebuilding was due to a surplus.
how is that ?
if there was a surplus, why would there be any building at all?0 -
-
Jimmy owns North Angleland.
Jenny owns South Angleland.
The build themselves houses.
Abdul moves into North Angleland.
Jimmy builds another house.
Sven moves into North Angleland.
Jimmy builds another house.
Sensing an influx, Jimmy builds another couple of houses.
Jenny, thinking that if she builds it, they will come, also builds a couple.
Now there is a surplus of 4 houses.
Luckily Jean-Paul moves to South Angleland - straight into one of the empty houses.
Jenny builds another house, in anticipation.
Jimmy is worrying, because his two empty houses are just sitting there, so he decides not to build any more for now.
But then Svetlana, Goodluck and Hans move to North Angleland. There's only enough houses for two of them.
Now there is a housing shortage in North Angleland, but a surplus in South Angleland.
etcetera...0 -
If Jimmy & Jenny had realised what was going to happen to house prices in London they'd never have bothered building houses in Angleland they would have come here and made a killing in London.Liverpool is one of the wonders of Britain,
What it may grow to in time, I know not what.
Daniel Defoe: 1725.
0 -
sennypijama wrote: »Jimmy owns North Angleland.
Jenny owns South Angleland.
The build themselves houses.
Abdul moves into North Angleland.
Jimmy builds another house.
Sven moves into North Angleland.
Jimmy builds another house.
Sensing an influx, Jimmy builds another couple of houses.
Jenny, thinking that if she builds it, they will come, also builds a couple.
Now there is a surplus of 4 houses.
Luckily Jean-Paul moves to South Angleland - straight into one of the empty houses.
Jenny builds another house, in anticipation.
Jimmy is worrying, because his two empty houses are just sitting there, so he decides not to build any more for now.
But then Svetlana, Goodluck and Hans move to North Angleland. There's only enough houses for two of them.
Now there is a housing shortage in North Angleland, but a surplus in South Angleland.
etcetera...
yes indeed there will always be need to build a limited number of houses for specific reasons
but on aggregate, what would your expectation be; comparing a rapid growing population relative to a static or only slowly growing population, on the number of new buildings?0 -
As I've said, that really depends on the need for buildings. You don't seem to understand that if there was excess building in times when the population was not growing as fast, then that would create a surplus.
I make my points not to say that there is no need for housebuilding. I care about logic and statistics. The chart posted does not make the case for housebuilding, since the data is largely irrelevant. You need to take into account family size, empty homes, and any surplus in building over the previous 20 or so years, together with house prices, average salary, buying potential and many other factors.
Do we need more housing? Maybe.
Does the chart prove that? Absolutely not. But it looks good!0 -
sennypijama wrote: »As I've said, that really depends on the need for buildings. You don't seem to understand that if there was excess building in times when the population was not growing as fast, then that would create a surplus.
I make my points not to say that there is no need for housebuilding. I care about logic and statistics. The chart posted does not make the case for housebuilding, since the data is largely irrelevant. You need to take into account family size, empty homes, and any surplus in building over the previous 20 or so years, together with house prices, average salary, buying potential and many other factors.
Do we need more housing? Maybe.
Does the chart prove that? Absolutely not. But it looks good!
I am also not convinced by this graph that seems to appear on these pages every other day. There is clearly more complex issues at play considering the average household size is unchanged for 20 years.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2013/rft-tables.xls0 -
sennypijama wrote: ». if there was excess building in times when the population was not growing as fast, then that would create a surplus
The Barker report noted in 2004 that the UK required 240,000 + new houses a year just to keep up with population growth and changes in household composition.
We haven't built that many in a single year since then.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
In_For_A_Penny wrote: »There is clearly more complex issues at play considering the average household size is unchanged for 20 years. ]
The average staying the same is a sign of rising housing pressure though.
We've seen a big increase in single person households over the last few decades.
If we were building enough houses to keep up with housing need, the average should have fallen to around 2.0 by now, as it already has in many other developed nations unconstrained by a housing shortage.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/9781859354759.pdfThe number of people living on their own has more than doubled since 1971.
Around 14% of the population in England now live alone compared with 6.5% in 1971.
■ Most of the growth has been among those of working age – from 1 million living alone in 1971 to 3.5 million now. A much greater proportion of working age adults now live alone than used to be the case.
The growth in people living alone is a matter of potential concern because it has tangible implications for the overall consumption of housing and other resources which tend to increase in proportion to the number of households rather than to the total population;“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”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
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
