Do you want house price to rise or fall?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

what do you think would happen if no shelf stacker could afford to live in London stacking shelves for £8 per hour? what would happen to London? Would the millionaires in London starve to death as the supermarket shelves went unstacked? Or would they decide paying 20% more for their shopping is better than starving?

You are concentrating all your remarks on central and the problem extends further out than central London, I get the impression that you are so insulated against how a very large number of people in this country live that you cannot see how unequal we are becoming.

I live well out in commuter belt cheapest rent for 3 bed house £1100 a month council tax £180 not very easy on low wage.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

You are concentrating all your remarks on central and the problem extends further out than central London, I get the impression that you are so insulated against how a very large number of people in this country live that you cannot see how unequal we are becoming.

I live well out in commuter belt cheapest rent for 3 bed house £1100 a month council tax £180 not very easy on low wage.

I was poor most my life and I have lived in council homes and went to terrible schools trust me I know what life is like and I will just repeat what I often say. In the UK life is good for functional people there is no poverty that is not induced by dysfunctional people an habits. While I was financially poor growing up I didn't see myself as poor nor do I look back and think of our childhood that way because we were from a functional family and functional families even on benefits dont have to live a poor life

The inequality you speak of is not the poor getting poorer that is not true in the UK or globally the poor have gotten much richer and their improvements in life are much bigger and more important than the rich peoples improvements in life. Going from !!!!!!!! in the woods to a proper home is a much bigger step up than going from buying a BMW to a Faraari even if 'the gap' statistics say the move wasn't fair

If the poor get 5x richer but the rich get 20x richer that is still very very good progress to somehow suggest the gap is the big story rather than the poor getting 5 x richer misses whats important

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

I was poor most my life and I have lived in council homes and went to terrible schools trust me I know what life is like and I will just repeat what I often say. In the UK life is good for functional people there is no poverty that is not induced by dysfunctional people an habits. While I was financially poor growing up I didn't see myself as poor nor do I look back and think of our childhood that way because we were from a functional family and functional families even on benefits dont have to live a poor life

The inequality you speak of is not the poor getting poorer that is not true in the UK or globally the poor have gotten much richer and their improvements in life are much bigger and more important than the rich peoples improvements in life. Going from !!!!!!!! in the woods to a proper home is a much bigger step up than going from buying a BMW to a Faraari even if 'the gap' statistics say the move wasn't fair

If the poor get 5x richer but the rich get 20x richer that is still very very good progress to somehow suggest the gap is the big story rather than the poor getting 5 x richer misses whats important

The main problem is housing not the quality but security and price, if you were bought up in council accommodation I would have though you would see the benefits. I was not lucky enough to be bought up in council accommodation because my parents couldn't get it, so I was bought up in what would be considered a slum now. In my opinion everybody should have reasonable secure accommodation.

Graham_Devon

So, greatape, just to confirm....

If you can afford a house and a few luxuries, you are a "functional person".

However, you are a "dysfunctional person" if you can't?

What can anyone even say to this?! I'd ignore the functional element, and just state fact. You Sir, are a fool.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

The main problem is housing not the quality but security and price, if you were bought up in council accommodation I would have though you would see the benefits. I was not lucky enough to be bought up in council accommodation because my parents couldn't get it, so I was bought up in what would be considered a slum now.

Yes sure as a recipient of the subsidy it was good for us
But I doubt we had to be in inner London.
We displaced workers who were training in an out a hundred miles.
We lived within walking distance of the 3 biggest employment hubs of Westminster Docklands and the city but my father worked in zone 4 so while people in zone 4 were travailing to zone 1 to work my father was going from close to zone 1 to zone 4 for work. When he was finally able to buy a house he bought one in zone 4 which again shows we did not have to be in zone 2.

The main reason we were in zone 2 was because zone 2 had a huge amount an excess of council properties my father even tells me there was so much you could refuse what you were shown and get shown half a dozen more to pick from. Even if you dont want to sell down council properties in London it makes no sense to concentrate so much in one area. For arguments sake at least sell down half the ones in zone 2 and buy the equivalent number in zone 3/4/5 so the overall number does not fall but each borough goes towards 24% rather than now where the average is 24% in London but some areas are over 40% and others closer to 10%

In my opinion everybody should have reasonable secure accommodation.

The problem, once again, comes down to functional vs dysfunctional families
You can have two identical homes next door to each other one will be well kept neat and clean the other will be a hell hole. I recall once going to my friends home as a child the same home we lived in and almost all the doors and walls were broken due to physical family fights with each other. Even the toilet door was only half a door. Almost every decent person would think what the hell this is no way to live but it was not the councils fault they gave them a new flat but a couple of years on it was a dirty hell hole.

Even now I can see this with some of my tenants.
Some are super clean and keep their homes in top condition
Others are super dirty and live like slobs.
The exact same property will look very different in different hands

Does everyone deserve a decent home. Yes of course and I would argue most UK homes are decent but of course dysfunctional families live in decent homes that look anything but decent once they have been in there a while

GreatApe

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So, greatape, just to confirm....

If you can afford a house and a few luxuries, you are a "functional person".

However, you are a "dysfunctional person" if you can't?

What can anyone even say to this?! I'd ignore the functional element, and just state fact. You Sir, are a fool.

Thats not at all what I am saying.

I said that functional poor (or middle or rich) people live good lives in the UK
That is to say you can live on benefits and still have a nice neat home polite well mannered kids and meet all your needs.

And that dysfunctional poor or middle or even rich people live in hell.
If you are dysfunctional, at any level of wealth, your life is !!!!.
I know one dysfunctional family that is fairly well off even own 3 homes.
The husband though is a proper drunk. Goes gets drunk (almost all the time) and then goes up and fights the biggest person in the pub and then comes home to his wife beaten black and blue. A person that can barely hold down a job for 6 months before his drinking gets him fired. They live in hell

A good life in a developed country is dependent on you being functional not on you being rich

Of course there is a strong correlation. You dont stay rich or average for very long if you are a drug or drink or gambling addict you end up poor quickly. Many mistake dysfunction for poverty. We have no real poverty in the UK we do however have dysfunctional people and families which live lives many on the outside would describe as poor.

GreatApe

Why is this controversial? It is a self evident truth

Do you not know any families on benefits who have good children and a nice kept home?
What does that show other than being able to live a good life on benefits if you are a functional family unit?

Likewise do you not know any dysfunctional families? I would guess about 20% of family units are some level of dysfunctional and at least 10% are extremely dysfunctional, dont they have difficult lives? Do drunks or gambling addicts not exist? Do they not have difficult lives? Its not even about poverty I've known people to earn above average wage but take their weekly/monthly wages to the bookies and lose it all in a day or two and then repeat this every single week/month. Are they poor and have !!!! lives? Well yes they are poor and have !!!! lives but its not not to not earning enough its due to a horrible addiction that makes them and keeps them as dysfunctional people.

Malthusian

ukcarper wrote: »

In my opinion everybody should have reasonable secure accommodation.

Even if they don't want it?

Take GreatApe's friends. If they signal they don't want reasonable secure accommodation by trashing the place, what do you do? Move them into another reasonable secure home, and then chain them to the walls in a straitjacket? If not, how else do you propose to make people live in reasonable secure accommodation against their will?

ukcarper

Malthusian wrote: »

Even if they don't want it?

Take GreatApe's friends. If they signal they don't want reasonable secure accommodation by trashing the place, what do you do? Move them into another reasonable secure home, and then chain them to the walls in a straitjacket? If not, how else do you propose to make people live in reasonable secure accommodation against their will?

If they trash the place then I would not re house them in same standard of accommodation, there is no excuse for it. But there are plenty of people who would not do that who cannot get secure affordable accommodation.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Yes sure as a recipient of the subsidy it was good for us
But I doubt we had to be in inner London.
We displaced workers who were training in an out a hundred miles.
We lived within walking distance of the 3 biggest employment hubs of Westminster Docklands and the city but my father worked in zone 4 so while people in zone 4 were travailing to zone 1 to work my father was going from close to zone 1 to zone 4 for work. When he was finally able to buy a house he bought one in zone 4 which again shows we did not have to be in zone 2.

The main reason we were in zone 2 was because zone 2 had a huge amount an excess of council properties my father even tells me there was so much you could refuse what you were shown and get shown half a dozen more to pick from. Even if you dont want to sell down council properties in London it makes no sense to concentrate so much in one area. For arguments sake at least sell down half the ones in zone 2 and buy the equivalent number in zone 3/4/5 so the overall number does not fall but each borough goes towards 24% rather than now where the average is 24% in London but some areas are over 40% and others closer to 10%



The problem, once again, comes down to functional vs dysfunctional families
You can have two identical homes next door to each other one will be well kept neat and clean the other will be a hell hole. I recall once going to my friends home as a child the same home we lived in and almost all the doors and walls were broken due to physical family fights with each other. Even the toilet door was only half a door. Almost every decent person would think what the hell this is no way to live but it was not the councils fault they gave them a new flat but a couple of years on it was a dirty hell hole.

Even now I can see this with some of my tenants.
Some are super clean and keep their homes in top condition
Others are super dirty and live like slobs.
The exact same property will look very different in different hands

Does everyone deserve a decent home. Yes of course and I would argue most UK homes are decent but of course dysfunctional families live in decent homes that look anything but decent once they have been in there a while

I'm not sure what you think, people who trash properties may well be dysfunctional but what about the thousands who would treat property with respect but can't get affordable secure accomadation.