Housing Before BTL

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

They could get a job? If I didn't have a mortgage to pay I could quite easily bump along on minimum wage. How much do you pay on building insurance and maintenance each year - a lot less than you've got in mind for the gifted house I bet.

Why not bung the lottery winners an extra £3k/ year for 5 years as a moving in gift? More than cover it.

Of course, being the internet, we have to assume everyone housed by the grace of the state couldn't possibly work or get a new job.

Most people claiming housing benefit already have jobs. If you move them 300 miles from their job, it's unlikely they will still have that job!! Reality sucks, eh.

Your last statement is a bit bizzare too. You claim others are pretending people couldn't possibly work when 2 paragraphs above your whole argument is based on your statement and assumption that people in social housing don't work.

cells

antrobus wrote: »

I do so love cells's cunning plans.

Put it this way. At present 7 people out of 10 have a job (of some kind). If you relocate those 10 people, and 1 job moves with them, then 6 of the will become unemployed.

I'm not convinced that's a goood idea.:)

32 million have jobs out of 65 million people or roughly 1 job per 2 people.

If you relocate 10 people, upto 5 jobs will move with them. It wont be 5 because some jobs are not local but are national. If it is two thirds local and one third national then for a movement of 10 people you will get 3.33 jobs moving with them


To even things up so as not to distort unemployment you would probably need to move a slightly non average group. On the extreme end if 10 pensioners moved they dont need/want a job but create 3.33 jobs with their demand which would reduce unemployment in the place they moved to. Or again a family with more than the average number of children would have the same impact creating more jobs than they need themselves.


We see this trend already. High rents and prices force this trend. That is to say places of high employment eg London and esp inner London have a higher portion of working age adults

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Most people claiming housing benefit already have jobs. If you move them 300 miles from their job, it's unlikely they will still have that job!!

Your last statement is a bit bizzare too. You claim others are pretending when 2 paragraphs above you seem to fall foul of your very own issue.

someone I know recently moved from the south to the midlands and got the exact same job in the midlands :eek:

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

overall its roughly 1 job for ever 2 people.

Of course not all demand moves with people as it is not local demand but national.

So its just a question of how many of the 1 job for every 2 capital is local.

You could try go adding it all up, eg if the NHS employs 1.5 million people for 65 million population. Thats 1.5 staff for every 6.5 people. IF the education sector employs 0.5 million people for 15 million kids thats 0.5 staff for every 15 kids etc etc

Or you could try guess it, for instance I think two thirds of demand is local. Which means 1 job for every 3 capita. So a family of 6 creates demand for 3 jobs 2 of which is local and moves with them 1 of which is not local and stays put


once again, jobs are not a geographical feature of the landscape but move with people

How do you get 1 to 2

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

How do you get 1 to 2

?

~32 million jobs
~65 million people
= roughly 1 job per 2 capita

some supply and demand is local, some not. My guess is its about 2/3rds local which would mean 1 job moves for ever 3 capita.

Therefore a movement of say 30,000 people from London to the midlands moves some 10,000 jobs with them.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

32 million have jobs out of 65 million people or roughly 1 job per 2 people.

If you relocate 10 people, upto 5 jobs will move with them. It wont be 5 because some jobs are not local but are national. If it is two thirds local and one third national then for a movement of 10 people you will get 3.33 jobs moving with them


To even things up so as not to distort unemployment you would probably need to move a slightly non average group. On the extreme end if 10 pensioners moved they dont need/want a job but create 3.33 jobs with their demand which would reduce unemployment in the place they moved to. Or again a family with more than the average number of children would have the same impact creating more jobs than they need themselves.


We see this trend already. High rents and prices force this trend. That is to say places of high employment eg London and esp inner London have a higher portion of working age adults

You seem keen to move pensioneers from thier support group. My mum was in social housing and in her latter years I gave her a large amount of support if she was moved 200 miles away I would not have be able to do it. You seem very good a looking up statistic but not very good at looking beyond them.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

?

~32 million jobs
~65 million people
= roughly 1 job per 2 capita

some supply and demand is local, some not. My guess is its about 2/3rds local which would mean 1 job moves for ever 3 capita.

Therefore a movement of say 30,000 people from London to the midlands moves some 10,000 jobs with them.

You said it my guess.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

You seem keen to move pensioneers from thier support group. My mum was in social housing and in her latter years I gave her a large amount of support if she was moved 200 miles away I would not have be able to do it. You seem very good a looking up statistic but not very good at looking beyond them.

I know an elderly person who moved 100 miles to be near her son and his family

does my anecdotal story have the same validity as yours?

Jackieboy

ukcarper wrote: »

You seem keen to move pensioneers from thier support group. My mum was in social housing and in her latter years I gave her a large amount of support if she was moved 200 miles away I would not have be able to do it. You seem very good a looking up statistic but not very good at looking beyond them.

That assumes that pensioners live near to their chldren, which in many cases, they don't.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

You said it my guess.

maybe a poorly chosen word, its my calculation and estimate. I didn't put a load of tickets in a hat and pull one out which is what you are inferring with 'my guess'

You could try to be more precise and look up the demand profile of each group (eg chidren, workers, pensoners, rich people poor people etc etc) and then look up the biggest 500 industries etc and calculate how much demand is local for each sub group.

However apart from taking a lot of time and effort to do that its not needed we know a portion of jobs are local and the general point is the most jobs move with people. Why do you want to challenge that? At best you can try to split hairs by saying well its not x jobs per capita its actually 1.7% less than that!