Housing benefit to private landlords

missbiggles1

CLAPTON wrote: »

HB creates low paid jobs were otherwise they wouldn't exist.
If there was no HB then the unemployed, low skilled people would have to move out of London.
There place would be filled by working skilled people could then afford to live there.
Where is a need for basic services, cleaning, catering etc, then these services would be automated where possible and wages for those jobs would rise.

There were low paid jobs in hotels and catering establishments long before working people were able to claim HB.

Automating services will make even more people unemployed and reliant on benefits so excuse me for not agreeing with you that this is a good thing.

missbiggles1

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

If they are affluent, they can afford to pay proper wages, not low wages. But they don't. Why is that?

You're speaking as if Londoners are either filthy rich or poorly paid in the service industries, whereas the majority of people are in between these extremes and would also like to be able to afford a cup of coffee or a Tube ride occasionally.

CLAPTON

missbiggles1 wrote: »

There were low paid jobs in hotels and catering establishments long before working people were able to claim HB.

Automating services will make even more people unemployed and reliant on benefits so excuse me for not agreeing with you that this is a good thing.

In the past rents were much cheaper and the cost of HB (or equivalent) was massively less. What social housing and HB are doing is ensuring that people doing'normal' jobs have to move out of London (utility workers, nurses, teachers etc.)

Automating services has given us the standard of living that we currently enjoy. If you want to stop increases in productivity then you condemn yourself and your children to permanent third world levels of poverty.

We have record levels of employment and very low levels of unemployment.

CLAPTON

Alice_Walker wrote: »

Good in theory, useless in reality. I can't think of any economy where your model rings true. I can think of several where no state support is available and wages still remain low. People either travel for hours to work or live in slums. Rio/ Brazil is a prime example, the UAE another. Hardly what you would consider to be civilised societies.

I don't advocate the complete absence of state support but HB has grown to a huge extend and is creating a London where only the rich or the heavily subsidised can live. Only an insane society creates a situation where people doing ordinary but vital jobs like nurses, junior doctors, teachers, utility workers, shop and office workers can't afford to live in LOndon, but the unemployed can live in Westminster.

missbiggles1

CLAPTON wrote: »

In the past rents were much cheaper and the cost of HB (or equivalent) was massively less. What social housing and HB are doing is ensuring that people doing'normal' jobs have to move out of London (utility workers, nurses, teachers etc.)

Automating services has given us the standard of living that we currently enjoy. If you want to stop increases in productivity then you condemn yourself and your children to permanent third world levels of poverty.

We have record levels of employment and very low levels of unemployment.

You never struck me as a naive poster but do you seriously believe that?

missbiggles1

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't advocate the complete absence of state support but HB has grown to a huge extend and is creating a London where only the rich or the heavily subsidised can live. Only an insane society creates a situation where people doing ordinary but vital jobs like nurses, junior doctors, teachers, utility workers, shop and office workers can't afford to live in LOndon, but the unemployed can live in Westminster.

Now that I do agree with - we really must start using social housing stocks more wisely.

System

CLAPTON wrote: »

In the past rents were much cheaper and the cost of HB (or equivalent) was massively less. What social housing and HB are doing is ensuring that people doing'normal' jobs have to move out of London (utility workers, nurses, teachers etc.)

Automating services has given us the standard of living that we currently enjoy. If you want to stop increases in productivity then you condemn yourself and your children to permanent third world levels of poverty.

We have record levels of employment and very low levels of unemployment.

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You never struck me as a naive poster but do you seriously believe that?

Last week on Bloomberg, a CEO claimed that the only reason the UK's unemployment is down is because of falling real wages. He claimed that EU countries have high levels of unemployment because of higher real wage growth. He showed charts to help explain his theory.

kinger101

The problem with the statement is it ignores Germany which has lower unemployment and higher wage growth. And numerous countries which have lower wage growth and higher unemployment.

Can you think of another reason why a CEO might be an advocate of lower wages? If they thought it was that useful, they might not award themselves double-digit pay increases every year.

CLAPTON

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You never struck me as a naive poster but do you seriously believe that?

if you have alternative facts please do post them up
but if you want higher wages then improvements in productivity is the only solution.

mwpt

Alice_Walker wrote: »

Good in theory, useless in reality. I can't think of any economy where your model rings true. I can think of several where no state support is available and wages still remain low. People either travel for hours to work or live in slums. Rio/ Brazil is a prime example, the UAE another. Hardly what you would consider to be civilised societies.

If you know my posting history you'd know I believe in the free market but with the support of a socially democratic state with a welfare system. I think it is reasonable to believe that the free market will provide better outcomes for most people in some cases whereas the state will provide better outcomes in other cases.

In this case, I am not convinced that housing benefit needs to exist. I don't know what to make of the examples of Rio, but surely if a basic level of welfare support existed, which allowed people to subsist but make their own decisions on where that support would allow them to live (for example, this basic level of support would not allow them to live in central London), then they would choose rationally to move elsewhere. With fewer subsidised workers available in London, a few things could happen. Either pay rates would have to rise, rents would have to decrease, or businesses would have to relocate. All of those things seem like good outcomes to me for society overall, so this isn't meant to be an attack on private landlords or a 'nasty party' type policy.