Why are house prices so expensive in the south east

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

ok about 6 million UK citizens people who would dearly love to live in London but can't because of the high cost of housing due to the large number of immigrants.
Probably a welcome fall in the price of property so that now people in their later 20s early 30s now now afford family sized property and have the option of starting a family if they so wish.

The thing is, for house prices to drop enough for those people to buy their dream houses, you're going to have to crash the property market and financially ruin a lot of people and institutions. So whilst these 20-30 somethings may now be able to buy a 4-bedroom house in central London, their tax bill to pay the upkeep for all those people deprived of pensions and jobs will be through the roof.

I would agree that a number of coffee places would close with zero impact on the economic life of the capital.

We're not just talking about coffee places, we're talking about London losing almost all of its: Restaraunts, cafes, take-aways, grocers, newsagents, hairdressers, phone repair shops, and so on. You'd also lose a huge number of professionals like doctors and engineers. You'd be left with almost nothing beyond some large chain stores.

What evidence do you have that a 'larger population ' provides higher per capita income?

I didn't mention per capita income, I mentioned quality of life. I assumed you know the difference?

Most the the immigrant do low skilled jobs

Have you got any evidence for that?
Plenty of immigrants have high skilled jobs and run successful businesses.

Why do you think living in a shared expensive flat makes you 'richer' that living in a family sized property?

I never said that?

Why do you think commuting 2-3 hours per day is better than for half an hour.

I never said that either.

basically millions of the citizens of the UK will much better off : better jobs, better housing, better travel, better services.

Except they won't. There will be less jobs all round, because you're talking about getting rid of 40% of the people that use those jobs & services.
You're going to get better housing, sure, because there will be a surplus, but you're robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Your not going to get better travel because you've lost 40% of the people that use it; so use will fall, services will get cut and investment will drop.
You won't get better services, because a lot of the people providing and paying for those services won't be doing so anymore.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

the garbage you actually posted was nothing to do with the above

I didnt spell it out I tried to keep it simple for those who have less understanding of the issues and thought others like yourself could infer what I was sayin.

What lessons of contemporary relevance do you revive from historic migrations : are they related to your belief that all ISIL psychopaths are your cousins?

unless you believe the people of ISIL are another species to yourself then of course they are related to us all.

too stupid and racist to comment on.

explain yourself

How does you love of young lower skilled foreigners sit with your observations that we are all cousins and all the result of migration. Do do you discriminate against all these other cousins?

yes we have the power to discriminate for our economic benefit against the other members of our species. In some ways it is probably immoral to set a criteria but since we hold the power we can set a criteria which will benefit the locals. And that criteria would primarily be based on age. Younger migrants contribute more than older ones and if we did have some sort of quota age should probably be the main criteria far beyond anything else.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

The thing is, for house prices to drop enough for those people to buy their dream houses, you're going to have to crash the property market and financially ruin a lot of people and institutions. So whilst these 20-30 somethings may now be able to buy a 4-bedroom house in central London, their tax bill to pay the upkeep for all those people deprived of pensions and jobs will be through the roof.

don't be ridiculous : no-one mentioned all people suddenly buying dream 4 bed houses in central london. One is talking about a welcome reduction in prices and increased availability per capita living space.

your hypotheses that the UK can't survive with a population of only 62 million is pattently ludicrous: one wonders how any other country of less than 65 million survive.
Do countries with less than 65 million people manage to pay people pensions.

We're not just talking about coffee places, we're talking about London losing almost all of its: Restaraunts, cafes, take-aways, grocers, newsagents, hairdressers, phone repair shops, and so on. You'd also lose a huge number of professionals like doctors and engineers. You'd be left with almost nothing beyond some large chain stores.

People provide both a sources of labour which produce goods and services (supply side) and also consume goods and services (demand side). This explain why countries like NZ (poplution 4 million) or Aus (27 million) can enjoy a good standard of living even though they don't have the magic population of 65 Million you consider essential for existance.

I didn't mention per capita income, I mentioned quality of life. I assumed you know the difference?

so you think living in a small shared flat etc provides a better 'quality of life' that living in larger place ?

Plenty of immigrants have high skilled jobs and run successful businesses.

do you have any evidence of this?
given a large number of recent immigrant are young europeans it seems unlikely that they come with high skill levesl and successful businesses.

Except they won't. There will be less jobs all round, because you're talking about getting rid of 40% of the people that use those jobs & services.
You're going to get better housing, sure, because there will be a surplus, but you're robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Your not going to get better travel because you've lost 40% of the people that use it; so use will fall, services will get cut and investment will drop.
You won't get better services, because a lot of the people providing and paying for those services won't be doing so anymore.

I've already explained how people are both asource of 'supply' and of demand and how this explains how countires with populations smaller than the UK still survive with a good standard of living.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

your hypotheses that the UK can't survive with a population of only 62 million is pattently ludicrous: one wonders how any other country of less than 65 million survive.Do countries with less than 65 million people manage to pay people pensions.

many countries have a much much better demographics with fewer older people and more younger working people.

People provide both a sources of labour which produce goods and services (supply side) and also consume goods and services (demand side). This explain why countries like NZ (poplution 4 million) or Aus (27 million) can enjoy a good standard of living evne though thye don't have the magic population of 65 Million you consider essential for existance.

Both of those countries have had larger population increases than the UK over the last 10 years.

so you think living in a small shared flat etc provides a better 'quality of life' that living in larger place ?

The UK is probably building around 180-200k homes this year which means if the population increases by 450,000 this year the persons per home figure stays the same so we are not really going to a situation of more dense living

do you have any evidence of this?
given a alrge number of recent immigrant are young europeans it seems unlikely that they come with high skill levesl and successful businesses.

well dont you always complain that london is full of migrants? at the same time London covers a lot of the countries bills

I've already explained how people are both asource of 'supply' and of demand and how this explains how countires with populations smaller than the UK still survive with a good tandard of living.

no what you did was sillyly highlight that a country called australia that is growing at about twice the rate of the uk due to migration is doing well

What you should do is find a developed country with a static or falling population and tell us how well they are doing and how well you think they will be doing in 20 years time.

Fella

I can't speak for the whole of the South East but in Essex it's because we know there's no possibility of Shami Chakrabarti moving here.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I didnt spell it out I tried to keep it simple for those who have less understanding of the issues and thought others like yourself could infer what I was sayin.

what you actually posted was

The main reason why London and to a lessor extent the SE is expensive is to limit the number of people who migrate internally to those regions. If London was a similar price to Birmingham we would have London growing at +300k people per year rather than +100k people per year

which shows a clear lack of understanding between the cause (shortage) and the subsequent effect (increase in price).

unless you believe the people of ISIL are another species to yourself then of course they are related to us all.

do tell us how YOU think this is relevant to the value of immigration to the UK, supply of housing, NHS, per capita income etc.

yes we have the power to discriminate for our economic benefit against the other members of our species. In some ways it is probably immoral to set a criteria but since we hold the power we can set a criteria which will benefit the locals. And that criteria would primarily be based on age. Younger migrants contribute more than older ones and if we did have some sort of quota age should probably be the main criteria far beyond anything else.

So basically you aim to maximise your own self interest.
The matter of whether these people have a set of common ancestors several 10s of thousand ago is irrelevent, as are other historic movements of peoples.

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

Don't care much for grammar police, everybody makes mistakes... but this is plain illiteracy.

too true, I suffered from receiving an 'education' in a politically correct area that was more interested in world wide socialist solidarity and being a nuclear free zone than with actually teaching children anything.
However we were taught a little about not sneering a poor people overseas or racially discriminating against them.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

don't be ridiculous : no-one mentioned all people suddenly buying dream 4 bed houses in central london. One is talking about a welcome reduction in prices and increased availability per capita living space.

But the money lost to provide that affordability has to come from somewhere.

your hypotheses that the UK can't survive with a population of only 62 million is pattently ludicrous: one wonders how any other country of less than 65 million survive.
Do countries with less than 65 million people manage to pay people pensions.

No. I'm saying more people = more economy of scale. Particularly with more pensioners, we need more tax payers, not less.

People provide both a sources of labour which produce goods and services (supply side) and also consume goods and services (demand side). This explain why countries like NZ (poplution 4 million) or Aus (27 million) can enjoy a good standard of living even though they don't have the magic population of 65 Million you consider essential for existance.

What?

so you think living in a small shared flat etc provides a better 'quality of life' that living in larger place ?

I didn't say that either.

I said assuming 4/house (standard atomic family, mum dad, son, daughter), nothing about flat sharing.
Anyway, to answer your point. Flat sharing -> economies of scale; you split the rent, bills, have company etc. So you probably do have a higher quality of life sharing than being in the same place on your own.

do you have any evidence of this?

Have you ever been outside?
I can't remember the last take-away, cafe or restaraunt I've visited that was owned and run by a "local".

given a large number of recent immigrant are young europeans it seems unlikely that they come with high skill levesl and successful businesses.

Have you got any reference that young people aren't highly skilled?

I've already explained how people are both asource of 'supply' and of demand and how this explains how countires with populations smaller than the UK still survive with a good standard of living.

What are you using to define standard of living?
As has been pointed out, your 2 examples of smaller countries have a good standard of life because of the immigration you're so keen to eradicate.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

too true, I suffered from receiving an 'education' in a politically correct area that was more interested in world wide socialist solidarity and being a nuclear free zone than with actually teaching children anything.
However we were taught a little about not sneering a poor people overseas or racially discriminating against them.

Then why do you want rid of foreigners if you were brought up with socialist solidarity and anti-racism?

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

But the money lost to provide that affordability has to come from somewhere.

so you are totally against people having family sized homes so they can have a family
anyway, most of the price of housing isn't 'real' as the price only exists once sold so there is no actual loss except for people who have bought recently

No. I'm saying more people = more economy of scale. Particularly with more pensioners, we need more tax payers, not less.


I didn't say that either.

I said assuming 4/house (standard atomic family, mum dad, son, daughter), nothing about flat sharing.
Anyway, to answer your point. Flat sharing -> economies of scale; you split the rent, bills, have company etc. So you probably do have a higher quality of life sharing than being in the same place on your own.

absolutley agree with your visions of economies of scale.

-Families to live in multi-occupied houses - can share kitchens and -bathrooms and so much more efficient
-single people in dormatories
-couples in shared flats
-could rip out seats in trains/buses to become more 'efficient'

OK meets your definition of a higher standard of living but I doubt many people would agree with you.

Have you ever been outside?
I can't remember the last take-away, cafe or restaraunt I've visited that was owned and run by a "local".
Have you got any reference that young people aren't highly skilled?

so you're now saying that cafe / restaurant employees are 'highly skilled?'
Do you not appreciate the absurdity of your own examples?

What are you using to define standard of living?

indeed a good question

As has been pointed out, your 2 examples of smaller countries have a good standard of life because of the immigration you're so keen to eradicate.

So you think a stable population leads to economic collapse : do you believe this on a world wide scale so the only way is exponentially expanding world wide polulation.
In any event all the evidence is that NZ and Aus would be per capita richer without immigration.