Is property in a bubble?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

They don't need to. Most UK born kids will get free housing.
Last census 2011 shows nearly 75% of UK nationals own their own homes which for all practical purposes is almost everyone. The reason 75% homeowners is pretty much full ownership is because most home owners are first renters.

Really there isn't anything wrong with UK housing its much much better than most the world.
Sure we have 20% in private rentals (booo hissss) but people don't release that its a transitional tenure. I myself rented for 9 years before buying. So to the closest 5%, 65% owners 20% private renters 15% social renters does not mean 20% never will be owners and always renters it means 80% will be owners 15% will be in social and 5£ will be long term renters. Even of that 5% long term private renters many are renters renting for free. WG someone buys a house for their mother to love in rent free. Iirc about 500,000 private rental homes are uses in this ay, evil landlords buying homes to rent out for free to their unable relatives often elderly parents but also often disabled or else tables adult children nearby.

Its a similar story with empty homes and unemployment figures. Both represented transient not permanent. When we say there are 500,000 empty homes fast forward six months and say there are Stoll 500,000 empty homes but it's a different lot of empty homes. Its like filling a bathtub up with water that has a hole on it. Properties continuously become dilapidated and empty while somewhere else properties are continuously being renovated and brought back into usable conditions. So people who cry about empty homes are mostly wrong too. Likewise the unemployment figure is more an indicator of how fast people get back into work rather than unemployment itself. The headline figure is about 4.5% but the six month figure is closer to 1.5% which means 65% of unemployed fond work in 6 months or less. But the figure doesn't go down because while roughly speaking 1 million unemployed find a job in 6 months or less some 1 million employee lose their jobs over the same 6 months.


Like I keep saying
Things really are very very good in the UK and most developed nations
Of course with 66 million people you can paint any narrative you can think of
Any in depth statistics and analysis shows things are really good even the things that look like bads like empty homes are simple misunderstanding of what's going on

We've gone all through this before I like many others believe you are wrong and we are not going to agree so there is not point discussing this.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

Not really sure what the issue is. Those who can’t afford to buy simply need to be more realistic and or work harder. No other way to it I’m afraid. In simple terms those who can’t afford to buy do not deserve to buy in the first place.

Virtually everyone owns or gets a social house

Private renting is a transient tenure. About 75% of private renters move onto owning or social within 10 years or less.

Since about 20% of homes are private rental and 75% of them are transient at most we can say 5% of the population end up as long term private renters. That's hardly anyone. And a large group of them are renting for free about half a million rentals are rented for free and also renters who are also owners eg a friend of mine who rents a one bedroom flat in London but owns a family house in the Midlands

When you look into it there is no problem
Why are the Tories and the Tory press not smart enough to figure this out and write about it?

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

We've gone all through this before I like many others believe you are wrong and we are not going to agree so there is not point discussing this.

I'm not stating any views or opinions

Its a fact that private renting is a transient tenure about three quarters of private renters move onto buying or social in ten or fewer years.

Surely straight away that brings down the supposed problem from 20% of households as private renters to what actually matters which is the 5% of long term renters. Short term renting isn't a problem its a benefit I rented for 9 years and then bought.

Its also a fact that hundreds of thousands of private rented homes are for zero rent mostly relatives. That's not what most people would see as a problem that needs fixing but a virtue

The problem is much smaller than it appears

What limits home ownership much more are social homes.
As we can see private renting blocks maybe a max of 5% of people from becoming owners but the social sector blocks 17%. For higher ownership rates what needs to happen is to sell off the social homes down to a more reasonable 10% of the stock

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

I'm not stating any views or opinions

Its a fact that private renting is a transient tenure about three quarters of private renters move onto buying or social in ten or fewer years.

Surely straight away that brings down the supposed problem from 20% of households as private renters to what actually matters which is the 5% of long term renters. Short term renting isn't a problem its a benefit I rented for 9 years and then bought.

Its also a fact that hundreds of thousands of private rented homes are for zero rent mostly relatives. That's not what most people would see as a problem that needs fixing but a virtue

The problem is much smaller than it appears

The figure you qoute are a product of history and things are changing.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

The figure you qoute are a product of history and things are changing.

Not the fact that private renting is a transient tenure

Really wants there to debate about that?
You can look at the stats or even common sense will tell you its true.
Many owners rent for some time before becoming owners simple common sense

So the problem isn't that 20% can't afford to buy so are stuck in private rentals. The problem isn't that there isn't enough social homes. The problems is too many social homes and the fact that people don't understand private renting is a transitional tenure.

Even the migrants that pushes renting up post 2004 mass migration will buy in time already some evidence of this. But fundamental ownership headline figure will be limited by the size of the social stock and by the fact that private rental is a transient tenure (and the period has been increasing due to lifestyle choices like more kids to university and fewer marriages and delayed lives)

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Not the fact that private renting is a transient tenure

Really wants there to debate about that?
You can look at the stats or even common sense will tell you its true.
Many owners rent for some time before becoming owners simple common sense

So the problem isn't that 20% can't afford to buy so are stuck in private rentals. The problem isn't that there isn't enough social homes. The problems is too many social homes and the fact that people don't understand private renting is a transitional tenure.

Even the migrants that pushes renting up post 2004 mass migration will buy in time already some evidence of this. But fundamental ownership headline figure will be limited by the size of the social stock and by the fact that private rental is a transient tenure (and the period has been increasing due to lifestyle choices like more kids to university and fewer marriages and delayed lives)

I'm not sure what world you live in but many younger people in London and South East who would have been able to buy in past will never be able to buy unless things change and I'm not sure they will.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure what world you live in but many younger people in London and South East who would have been able to buy in past will never be able to buy unless things change and I'm not sure they will.

Like who?

Immigrants? Why should they be able to buy?
Poor people? Why should they be able to buy?
Those who are between 18-28? Why should they be able to buy?
A single person? Why should they be able to buy?

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure what world you live in but many younger people in London and South East who would have been able to buy in past will never be able to buy unless things change and I'm not sure they will.

Come on your smarter than that! Just because some people can't buy today it doesn't mean things were great in the past. Of the last 10 decades ownership has only ever been higher in one other decade and the main reason for that is the mass migration from 2004-2018 pushed up rentals over the last 14 years.

Its unreasonable its just wrong to suggest UK natives had it better with housing in the past. Not only in ownership terms but also actual quality and residential floorspace per capita things are better today


The poor get the 17% of social homes. 63% are owner occupiers and 20% are private renters.
But 75% of private renters will buy or move into social in ten or fewer years.
So only about 5% rent privately long term.
That's not bad in fact as I keep saying that is very very good

And even of the 5% of the population that rent long term it's not all bad news or horror stories. Eg about half a million renters pay £0 rent mostly renting off relatives. There are also well off long term renters. And there are long term renters who are also owners eg a friend if mine rents a 1 bed flat in zone 1 where he works but also owns a family home in the Midlands.

Of course 5% renting term still means 3.3 million people so its easy to point to them and find sob stories and of course its more concentrated in the SE. However Nirvana is not for this world. We won't ever get to 0% long term rentals perfect efficiency isn't attainable in real systems. 5% long term rentals is pretty darn good. If mass migration stops that already reasonable figure will fall further

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

Like who?

Immigrants? Why should they be able to buy?
Poor people? Why should they be able to buy?
Those who are between 18-28? Why should they be able to buy?
A single person? Why should they be able to buy?

Immigrants should be able to buy and they do buy.
Long term immigrants have a similar ownership rate to the locals some cultures like the Indians have even higher ownership rates than the locals. But recent immigrants mostly rent privately for obvious reasons

Poor people get the social homes

Those between 18-28 mostly rent and this is normal and desirable, most of them go on to buy.

It seems to me that by almost all metrics the housing market seems logical and functioning well

The main problem seems to be mass ignorance on the subject and understanding of how housing works. Never have I seen in the media long term renter numbers. In the same way as the media never seems to quote the 6+ month unemployment figure or at least tell their readers the headline figure for unemployment is more an indicator of churn rather than unemployment just as the headline rental figures is more an indication of churn in the private rental stock

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

Like who?

Immigrants? Why should they be able to buy?
Poor people? Why should they be able to buy?
Those who are between 18-28? Why should they be able to buy?
A single person? Why should they be able to buy?

Because they don't earn enough. Prices in relation to earnings are about 20% higher than they have ever been and 50% long term average so it's obvious that fewer people can buy.