millennials-can-you-afford-rental-prices-in-london

Generali

mayonnaise wrote: »

It's remarkable the population growth in the 19th century.
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Population-history-of-london.jsp#a1815-1860
I'm sure there were 19th Century 'Claptons' around at that time also, but their actions were limited to shouting abuse through their window at the Irish or anyone else not part of the Anglo-Saxon masterrace.
Now these 'Claptons' have access to the internet.

This is the thing that clapton misses: the history of London is a history of people coming from elsewhere to seek a better life. The current imgration is just a continuation of what has been happening since the Restoration.

missbiggles1

cells wrote: »

Maybe housing was cheaper but it had to be because things like food were a lot more expensive in real terms.

So even if it were true that housing was cheaper it didn't mean people could afford more housing as other things ate up the income.

As people got richer housing got more expensive at least partly due to huge sums of money spent modernising and improving housing. For instance I know a you couple in London who bought a house not long ago and had to spend £70k brining it up to standard it had no work done to it in 50+ years. So even if people say Housing was cheaper they are talking about a lower quality House but they don't realise it

In addition if something's unaffordable then you're not worst off when it becomes more unaffordable. For someone on an average income it doesn't really matter whether a suitable property is 10 times their income or 100 times - in neither case can they afford it.

Generali

missbiggles1 wrote: »

In addition if something's unaffordable then you're not worst off when it becomes more unaffordable. For someone on an average income it doesn't really matter whether a suitable property is 10 times their income or 100 times - in neither case can they afford it.

My Grandmother lived in a rented flat on Greek Street in Soho for many years and later in life used to go on about how she could have bought a mews house off the Edgware Road for £250 in the 30s. No she couldn't because she could now more have paid £250 then as she could have paid millions now.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

I believe that the people of the UK (at least in the SE and London) are getting worse off due to the population increase : London is growing at the rate of 100,000 a year and the level of net new building is insufficient to even meet existing standard with no room to improve. That makes it every difficult for working couples to even consider being able to live in a family sized house.

My objective is NOT to do the best possible outcomes for the whole world but to do the best of the people of the UK whatever their generic material. Obviously these people are NOT special and have no unique genetic code or anything else to distinguish them, except an accident of birth that makes them British.

In the context of my posts, foreigners mean people who have not been born in the UK (with some exceptions) and does NOT refer to their genetic background : I often make this clear by writing ' foreign born' so that idiots can understand more clearly. Basically 'foreigner ' has it usual meaning and not your made up nonsense.

You have previously said that you are a greedy person looking to maximise the benefit of yourself and your own : just like me.
Get off your false and ridiculous pseudo scientific semi moral high ground and actually READ what I write.

You may disagree with me on many issues: you may well think that people living in smaller and smaller living spaces makes them richer or people with no real wage increases makes them richer or or people with more overcrowded and time consuming transport makes them richer or people with less access to NHS makes their lives better : but please use real arguments to justify your beliefs rather than telling me the Milliband's father was an immigrant.

Your the one who keep going in about how 3 million foreign Londoners are pushing up prices. I'm just trying to show you that most of London are migrants or the children of migrants. Crying that the children of migrants (Londoners) can't afford houses because of migrants to absurdity.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

We don't NEED immigrants to do ANY jobs.
If there was a genuine shortage of people to do necessary jobs then the price (wages) would rise until enough people wanted to do the jobs.
It is BECAUSE we have a unlimited input of cheap labour that the jobs are poorly paid.

So a place like Middlesbrough which has been falling in population you would expect the shop workers and nurses to be paid better than their equivlants in London?

How's that working out for Middlesbrough?

Mistermeaner

Yes but Clapton has now decreed that enough is enough and now is the time the draw bridge should be raised.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

This is the thing that clapton misses: the history of London is a history of people coming from elsewhere to seek a better life. The current imgration is just a continuation of what has been happening since the Restoration.

Except the millions of those new Londoners live in houses that used to be fields but the creation of the green belt completely changes the previous dynamic whereby more people equaled a geographically bigger city.

kabayiri

At this rate the state will just find more ways of subsidising people's rent.

Have we had a "help to rent" ISA yet?

It would be like a Junior ISA. You open it before your 5th birthday; pay in for 15 years; and it helps you afford half a dozen years in the Capital city in a room which isn't a garage.

lisyloo

how come they get any staff to work for them?

1) Share (personally I wouldn't want to do this, but the harsh answer is go somewhere else)
2) Live somewhere further out and/or not so nice. Plenty of Sh*tholes in London.
3) Many who work there are already in the market.
4) Some have well paid partners. It's not unusal for one person to be the breadwinner and the other to have a lower income often due to years out the market due to child care.

So whilst there are people prepared to share, commute, have a better off partner or already in the market then we won't run out of low paid workers in London.

Of course that's tough on people who don't fit into those categories, but that's life.

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

We don't NEED immigrants to do ANY jobs.
If there was a genuine shortage of people to do necessary jobs then the price (wages) would rise until enough people wanted to do the jobs.
It is BECAUSE we have a unlimited input of cheap labour that the jobs are poorly paid.

Engineers and medical staff aside that's probably true. That is, if you are talking about the skills that the country could not survive without.

The last sentence is certainly true.

But in a free market economy with an appropriate tax structure and appropriate qualification rules for state benefits, surely every private sector job should be of benefit to both the employer and the treasury?

The benefits system and cost of living should then in effect be operating as a tariff, making Britain a less attractive place for cheap labour to come to relative to other countries (because they'd have to compete with British workers who receive a large percentage more for the same job, with the same living costs), without really affecting those a bit further up the skills ladder. What you lose from the amount you don't want to be spending on benefits, you more than recoup through infrastructure that would not be needed if it weren't for mass immigration.

Whether that scenario is achievable or not is an entirely different question. Indeed whether the "renegotiation" achieves the benefits side of this or not is highly dubious (if it did the Government would surely still be crowing about it). But surely that is the idyllic scenario with regards to a balance between the pressures of immigration on housing and infrastructure, without harming the economy?