Why the bad news for landlords is just beginning

Windofchange

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

You still haven't explained why scarce and in high demand goods should be given away cheaply to the "avg worker".

You don't even understand why I made the comparison to a luxury car....
You live in cloud cuckoo land. Both prime London property and a bugatti are scarce and the demand for both is high. Why should a nurse be able to buy either.

It's not like we're saying nurses dont deserve a home, because they can quite easily rent or buy further out. It really is simple, it took about 10 posts for you to actually comprehend what an avg is, so I don't expect you to understand this post until I reiterate it another 9 times.:D

I'm not. Where am I saying that we should give things away? That people should be able to have a Bugatti or whatever silly comparison you want to make? Go back to that studio appartment. That was the cheapest thing that the lot of you could find to illustrate your point of affordability. Literally the cheapest place in one of the most run down nasty areas of Croydon. This was then held up as some sort of argument of look, people can afford to buy somewhere. At £175,000 the fact is that still a lot of people couldn't afford it. Junior doctor for instance on circa £25 - 30k would need a £50,000 deposit to get anywhere near the mortgage.

This is my point. It's not let's give every Tom, !!!! and Harry a flat in London. I'm not suggesting we just throw homes at people - this is what Thatcher did and the fact that some lifetime benefits claimants in central London can 'right to buy' their flat for pennies and sell it for a fortune !!!!es me off as much as the next man.

What I am saying is that we aren't talking about these people. We are talking about university educated individuals who are completely priced out of anything in their vicinity. Yes they can rent, and many do, but this isn't necessarily through choice. They have to.

The impact of this is very real whether you choose to gloss over it with silliness or not. On a course earlier this week I met an NHS manager for allied health professionals (nurses, physios, OT's etc) who said she cannot recruit to her current posts in central London. People aren't applying. There are huge staffing issues in central trusts. People I work with commute from all over the S.E of England because they can't afford London.

Let's get real. Whether you think property is going up, down, staying the same, it is hugely inflated in London / the S.E. The flats that would ordinarily have been purchased by the working classes in the past are now full of millionaires. Perfect example - a patient who I went to see the other week. An ex postman. Brought his house back in the day off the back of Brixton. 4 bedroom, 3 levels. His family home. What do you reckon this postman would afford now?

I'm not suggesting forcing a crash - in my view that has to come as the logical consequence of 90% of the population being priced out of the market.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

wht makes you think that? this isnt a forum to pour our tears out for the poor people who cant afford property. why is it even a problem? it is what it is. theres no entitlement to buy.

oh i am sympathetic. to the terminally ill and poor children in war torn countries.

but nurses - nah. dont care if they cant afford it. they work for me s i am paying their wages through my taxes. i rather have nurses on low wages so my taxes can be spent elsewhere.

I don't but that doesn't alter the fact that you look selfish and unsympathetic.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Most nurses do a difficult job for not much pay so I have a LOT of respect for them and would not begrudge them a higher wage.

However my values and views of nurses should not set their wages. Just like my/your values and views of other groups should not set the wages for those groups. What they are paid is probably not far off the supply and demand pricing for their labour.

The pricing of labour or the pricing of London homes is an economic question not a moral one. Framing it as a moral question is well just silly


If someone thinks nurses should be paid more then just say it. 'We should pay nurses twice as much and filter for higher quality and the additional £20 billion can be funded by doubling council tax'. That would be a reasonable view and argument and debate. But 'nurses are lovely people with difficult jobs its unjust that they can't buy a terrace house in zone 2' isn't much if anything


Personally I don't think I subscribe to the WP or Economic views that its all down to choice and hard work. We only live one life where chance and fortune play the biggest role. Thus some element of welfare and distribution is warranted. However the overall aim should be to maximise tech and productivity there is only so much you can achieve by taking from WP and giving to his sister.

Life isn't fair but its a hell of a lot better than it was and a hell of a lot better than plausible alternatives

But it is a economic problem, hence the cost of housing benefit and difficulty in recruiting and retaining more experienced staff. I will reiterate I am not saying low wage earners should be able to buy but that rents need to be affordable.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Windofchange wrote: »

I'm not. Where am I saying that we should give things away? That people should be able to have a Bugatti or whatever silly comparison you want to make? Go back to that studio appartment. That was the cheapest thing that the lot of you could find to illustrate your point of affordability. Literally the cheapest place in one of the most run down nasty areas of Croydon. This was then held up as some sort of argument of look, people can afford to buy somewhere. At £175,000 the fact is that still a lot of people couldn't afford it. Junior doctor for instance on circa £25 - 30k would need a £50,000 deposit to get anywhere near the mortgage.

This is my point. It's not let's give every Tom, !!!! and Harry a flat in London. I'm not suggesting we just throw homes at people - this is what Thatcher did and the fact that some lifetime benefits claimants in central London can 'right to buy' their flat for pennies and sell it for a fortune !!!!es me off as much as the next man.

What I am saying is that we aren't talking about these people. We are talking about university educated individuals who are completely priced out of anything in their vicinity. Yes they can rent, and many do, but this isn't necessarily through choice. They have to.

The impact of this is very real whether you choose to gloss over it with silliness or not. On a course earlier this week I met an NHS manager for allied health professionals (nurses, physios, OT's etc) who said she cannot recruit to her current posts in central London. People aren't applying. There are huge staffing issues in central trusts. People I work with commute from all over the S.E of England because they can't afford London.

Let's get real. Whether you think property is going up, down, staying the same, it is hugely inflated in London / the S.E. The flats that would ordinarily have been purchased by the working classes in the past are now full of millionaires. Perfect example - a patient who I went to see the other week. An ex postman. Brought his house back in the day off the back of Brixton. 4 bedroom, 3 levels. His family home. What do you reckon this postman would afford now?

I'm not suggesting forcing a crash - in my view that has to come as the logical consequence of 90% of the population being priced out of the market.

Wow you really don't have a clue. Some people are underpaid, big deal, what does that have to do with the price of property in London.

London today is nothing like the London of 30 yrs ago. Hence why your postman could afford to buy previously. It's a different world.

London is a cultural hotshot the best and brightest want to live here hence the demand has now outstripped supply. Housing was cheap in London 30.yrs ago because it was horrible. The demand to live in London was dwarfed buy supply.

ukcarper

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Wow you really don't have a clue. Some people are underpaid, big deal, what does that have to do with the price of property in London.

London today is nothing like the London of 30 yrs ago. Hence why your postman could afford to buy previously. It's a different world.

London is a cultural hotshot the best and brightest want to live here hence the demand has now outstripped supply. Housing was cheap in London 30.yrs ago because it was horrible. The demand to live in London was dwarfed buy supply.

I agree London is a different place to 30 years ago but we need accomadation for lower paid workers it doesn't have to be owner occupied but a city like London will not function without low paid workers.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree London is a different place to 30 years ago but we need accomadation for lower paid workers it doesn't have to be owner occupied but a city like London will not function without low paid workers.

Clearly, nobody said it doesn't, but I don't think the avg paid person has an automatic right to buy in Prime London, which is what the poster full of wind is stating.

Maybe hospital accommodation should be provided to NHS workers in London, HMO style apartments at a reduced rate, but Windy is arguing for an automatic right to buy a scarce item at a reduced rate because he's probably a nurse.....

ukcarper

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Clearly, nobody said it doesn't, but I don't think the avg paid person has an automatic right to buy in Prime London, which is what the poster full of wind is stating.

Maybe hospital accommodation should be provided to NHS workers in London, HMO style apartments at a reduced rate, but Windy is arguing for an automatic right to buy a scarce item at a reduced rate because he's probably a nurse.....

I don't think windofchange is saying that just that as it stands they can't buy anywhere. I don't think HMOs are the answer they are OK for young workers but not older more experienced workers, council housing used to go someway to solving the problem but now they seem to becoming increasingly occupied by non workers.

I think one of the things that is happening that is pricing normal people out is that with the increasing population areas that were not so desirable and therefore more affordable are becoming gentrified.

I personally can't see a solution to the problem but I see it as a problem some people obviously don't .

justme111

Or make salaries more competitive. Or close understaffed hospitals.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

But it is a economic problem, hence the cost of housing benefit and difficulty in recruiting and retaining more experienced staff. I will reiterate I am not saying low wage earners should be able to buy but that rents need to be affordable.

Rents are affordable

The government gives support to those who it deems worthy and cannot afford their rents. That is the current solution to unaffordable rents its also the solution to unaffordable food the government gives people who cannot feed or cloth themselves money to buy food and clothes

What is your solution to the 'nurse problem?
Somehow crash London rents by 70% so the single nurse can afford a townhouse in Brixton?
Why is that better than housing benefits or how would that even work for instance how many people who do not live in London now would quite like to if rents were a third of current levels?

GreatApe

chucknorris wrote: »

Maybe the Gov could/should directly provide or facilitate subsidised mortgage packages for (selective) key workers that comprise of:

reduced mortgage rate
higher multiples
shared ownership options

I don't think it's an issue but if it were one possible solution would be to give nurses social housing bases on their employment. So while they are nurses they can live in one of brixtons many council flats with £400pm rent rather than £1400pm rent

But even then solving the 'nurse problem' by creating another problem of not optimality allocating state housing on density/need but on profession. It wouldn't only be nurses you'd have a whole list of professions and groups of people who were allocated subsidised housing on the basis of some decision makers fondness for those groups. It would probably turn quite ugly with state housing for state workers a type of state nepotism.