UK housing: The £24bn Property puzzle

wotsthat

The-Joker wrote: »

Oh great, tell all those immigrants arriving on our shores to go out and earn more just like that. I had no dea it was so easy, neither did they when you tell them:rotfl:

Maybe you've got an overly negative view of people's motivations.

Faced with a reduction in income or lifestyle I try and make up the difference. What do you do? Start crying and hope your mummy reduces your board?

Probably why you can't perceive of any other outcome than reductions in housing benefit leading to an equal reductio in rent.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

Probably why you can't perceive of any other outcome than reductions in housing benefit leading to an equal reductio in rent.

In fairness, many people receiving HB are working at what should be considered reasonable maximum capacity. They can't just magically improve their income. Perhaps they could start a small business selling items on eBay, or whatever, but the point is, they shouldn't have to. Rents are too high and wages too low. Remove in work benefits and housing benefit and businesses might soon find they cannot hire anyone on their currently offered wages.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

In fairness, many people receiving HB are working at what should be considered reasonable maximum capacity. They can't just magically improve their income. Perhaps they could start a small business selling items on eBay, or whatever, but the point is, they shouldn't have to. Rents are too high and wages too low. Remove in work benefits and housing benefit and businesses might soon find they cannot hire anyone on their currently offered wages.

I don't care if businesses cannot hire on currently offered wages. Not at all.

A reduction in benefits will mean there's a pressure on businesses to pay higher wages. Effectively customers will have to decide whether they're willing to pay.

I don't see why the taxpayer needs to subsidise the wages of people serving coffee - that's up to the drinkers of coffee.

There might be wider social issues around whether there are benefits to employing people to work for benefits but, in general, if you want something I expect you to pay for all of it.

Of course, I have no issue with my own rent seeking behaviours.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't care if businesses cannot hire on currently offered wages. Not at all.

A reduction in benefits will mean there's a pressure on businesses to pay higher wages. Effectively customers will have to decide whether they're willing to pay.

I don't see why the taxpayer needs to subsidise the wages of people serving coffee - that's up to the drinkers of coffee.

No, neither do I. I think you misread my post as posing a question, but I meant it as a suggestion. I don't think in work benefits or housing benefit to working people should exist. I think these should never have existed and business should have to pay appropriate wages and/or rents adjust to an appropriate level.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

A reduction in benefits will mean there's a pressure on businesses to pay higher wages. Effectively customers will have to decide whether they're willing to pay.

More likely landlords to reduce rents. Then LL's will to decide whether letting property is viable. With rising interest rates could create a pincer movement.

cells

dktreesea wrote: »

Maybe the norm is that the number of occupiers per dwelling should fall, but the reality is we should be more prepared to live with others, e.g. members of our extended family, if we have the room. That would take some pressure off housing demand and rents. Some parents are already doing this, i.e. with their 20s and 30s something children still living at home, and foreigners who move to Britain seem willing to live in packed houses, even several to a room in some cases.


maybe we should concentrate less on new homes and focus instead on better using the housing stock we have. So for social housing, this would mean building new housing stock, to get singles unwilling to pay bedroom tax into approparite sized dwellings. But for the rest of us, maybe we should just consider living with other people, rather than just wanting to nest on our own?

no thats a stupid idea

lets just live 20,000 to a football stadium

There are lots of fottball stadiums hardly ever used

that will solve the problem

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

This has been the reality for a number of cultures for a while. If you can support multi-generational living in one housing unit you do gain on several fronts.

The ability to provide caring support for the elderly is just one.

I remember 3 decades ago that a number of Asian people in Rochdale working at a textile mill used to work different shifts. If a shift supervisor tried to change shifts around, a complaint would come back that the affected person would not have a bed to go back to - it was being used by another family member!

There's a thought. Shift living coming to London!

this is the norm in poorer countries, not because they love to live 20 to a house but because they are poor and they literally cant even afford the materials to build a dirt house

We see that even in the countries that "love" to live three generations to a hut things are changing.

Look at for example Turkey. They used to live like you say but since the country is now developing fast they are not doing it do much.

The occupancy rate has gone from over 8 in 1980 to now a little under 4 persons per house. Whats more with ~800,000 homes being built per year the occupancy rate is continuing to fall rapidly and in 20 years time should be in the 2.5 persons per house mark


so living like poor people is not an acceptable solution, even in poor countries

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

More likely landlords to reduce rents. Then LL's will to decide whether letting property is viable. With rising interest rates could create a pincer movement.

The most likely outcome of a reduction of in-work benefits isn't a single outcome and won't be clear for a while. Some rent reductions, some wage increases where the consumer is wiling to pay, job losses where they aren't and newspaper articles about social cleansing are reasonable expectations. I'm expecting to have to walk at least 10 steps in London when I want a coffee or sandwich.

Many people in London only moved there because of the money. If they can do better elsewhere they'll be off, if they can't they won't and in both cases I'm hopeful the taxpayer benefits.

Killerseven

Thrugelmir wrote: »

More likely landlords to reduce rents. Then LL's will to decide whether letting property is viable. With rising interest rates could create a pincer movement.

Sell before repossessed. With falling rents and rising interest payments, the LL is not such an appealing situation.