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!
Housing Before BTL
Comments
-
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.
you can be frustrating at times.
no one is forcing you or your mother to do anything. My point is jobs mostly move with people. Whats your mother got to do with that?
Also the beauty of maths and data is that you can often see it in real life which confirms or corrects your assumptions and theories.
In this case we can already see what I am describing.
People who need more jobs than they create (eg working people especially those without kids) live close to the jobs (eg inner London)
While those that create more jobs than they need (eg pensioners and children dont work but they create demand nad jobs) tend to live where there are less jobs (outer london and rEngland etc)
There is of course some distortion to this natural state of being. And that is that inner London has a very high % of social homes which do not react to the market in the above way. They allow pensioners to live in zone 2 in a council house as there is no market price to guide their decisions. This should be addressed in inner London in some way. Whatever the case it would take decades. My favored choice would probably be selling off the inner London council homes as they become vacant (and possibly replacing them with units further out)0 -
Exactly but if you assumption was true unemployment rate would be fairly uniform across country when it is not.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!0 -
No because the people cells wants would not have the choice as to where they go.
resources are rationed one way or another.
We can have ration books
We can have lottos
Or we can have market prices with the whole population trying to make their own judgement as to how they value costs and benefits
basically I am making the argument that market prices is a better way to ration and allocate goods while you are arguing that a one time lotto is a better way to ration things0 -
No because the people cells wants would not have the choice as to where they go.
It comes down to profit before people.
Lots have this mindset.
That is until they are personally effected - and the mindset changes.
For real life examples of this happening, look at very rich communities in rural areas. They want the maximum amount of profit from their assets, but the maximum amount of spending on their own local resources.
Watch what happens when an area has a local community hospital shut down due simply to the dwindling population as the wealthy have moved in and pushed the workers out. Uproar. Up until that point, so long as it effects someone else it doesn't matter.
In terms of this thread, it's displayed by the "force the poorer out of london, their lives, their support netowkr, their relatives don't matter". This is fine until cleaners, shop assistants etc are all gone and being taken over by people living in HMOs. Parts of London already have this issue.0 -
What's that got to do with the point I made, my mum would have needed that support so instead of me and my sister providing the state would have had to.resources are rationed one way or another.
We can have ration books
We can have lottos
Or we can have market prices with the whole population trying to make their own judgement as to how they value costs and benefits
basically I am making the argument that market prices is a better way to ration and allocate goods while you are arguing that a one time lotto is a better way to ration things0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »It comes down to profit before people.
Lots have this mindset.
That is until they are personally effected - and the mindset changes.
For real life examples of this happening, look at very rich communities in rural areas. They want the maximum amount of profit from their assets, but the maximum amount of spending on their own local resources.
Watch what happens when an area has a local community hospital shut down due simply to the dwindling population as the wealthy have moved in and pushed the workers out. Uproar. Up until that point, so long as it effects someone else it doesn't matter.
In terms of this thread, it's displayed by the "force the poorer out of london". This is fine until cleaners, shop assistants etc are all gone and being taken over by people living in HMOs. Parts of London already have this issue.
its called the monkey sphere.
We only really care about our social connections with are a few hundred deep and everyone else gets put way behind.
Its like saying, would you rather your own kid die or 10 kids elsewhere in the country. Most people would opt that 10 other kids die. Its a natural hard wired feature of the human mind. You are not going to change that and thats why a utopian communism where all are equal and wealth is distributed perfectly and equally will not work.
The best alternative is that we get so rich and so productive that giving to those outside the social connections harms us so little that we do it willingly. In simple terms as countries get richer they get more social and with capitalism making countries richer faster its actually been the correct road to a more even and social world0 -
The best alternative is that we get so rich and so productive that giving to those outside the social connections harms us so little that we do it willingly. In simple terms as countries get richer they get more social and with capitalism making countries richer faster its actually been the correct road to a more even and social world
I don't see how people in social housing are harming you now to be completely blunt.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K 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