Can Millenials Buy A House?

GreatApe

MPD wrote: »

For the poor to own or live in? If not to own then who will own them?

I suspect it will be roughly 2/3rds owned and 1/3rd rented (with that broken down further to half rented from the state/charity and half in the private market)

Either way your question or rather your implied outcome is somewhat reprehensible. It doesnt matter because going from living in a hut to living in a proper home is a massive step up irrespective of you renting or owning

MPD

GreatApe wrote: »

I suspect it will be roughly 2/3rds owned and 1/3rd rented (with that broken down further to half rented from the state/charity and half in the private market)

If they really are that poor how will they afford to buy a house? They may benefit somewhat from improved sanitation etc but the price will be a high proportion of whatever income they may have.

I'm sure you understand this is a feature of a capitalist system, if the capital holders cannot make a return on their investment then they will allocate it somewhere they can.

This is somewhat off the point of millenials affording a house but we went down the automation path with the discussion. My original point was that for all to benefit from automation removing the need for human labour at some point the available wealth will have to move from the haves to have nots, whether that be benefits, a basic income or some other option like a utopian Star Trek like society,

GreatApe

MPD wrote: »

If they really are that poor how will they afford to buy a house? They may benefit somewhat from improved sanitation etc but the price will be a high proportion of whatever income they may have

How did china go from 3rd world (truly third world, where people !!!! outside and use leaves to wipe their bums) in 1990 to first world in 2020?

I'm sure you understand this is a feature of a capitalist system, if the capital holders cannot make a return on their investment then they will allocate it somewhere they can.

You over complicate things unnecessarily
Will there be a billion more homes in 25 years? Yes
Who will live in them? Mostly people who dont have proper homes today?
Capital holders this and that doesn't matter, people who have poor housing today will have first world housing tomorrow.

This is somewhat off the point of millenials affording a house but we went down the automation path with the discussion. My original point was that for all to benefit from automation removing the need for human labour at some point the available wealth will have to move from the haves to have nots, whether that be benefits, a basic income or some other option like a utopian Star Trek like society,

We already have the utopia in the west
You work if you want to
You dont work if you dont want to
In either case you have a decent home, free education, free healthcare, free money to buy high quality food and goods.

Pretty much the only problems that exist in the UK and other developed nations are dysfunctional people and families. Drugs Alcohol and Gambling addictions destroy people and families.

You have third world migrants that can barely speak English arrive and live out their lives in the UK in good quality. If you can live a good life without working or even speak the native language let alone read and write how is that anything but economic utopia? Once again this does not mean everyone lives are perfect because non economic factors screw people up.

Sapphire

Cloud Cuckoo-land, mostly.

AdrianC

GreatApe wrote: »

How did china go from 3rd world (truly third world, where people !!!! outside and use leaves to wipe their bums) in 1990 to first world in 2020?

By not giving a toss about the environment and about wealth distribution internally.


One of the ways in which they're trying to totally eradicate poverty (absolute poverty, not just relative) by 2020 is by relocating entire villages from their old land to somewhere new.

Nullboris

I've never actually heard about how much wages and rent people get/pay in China? what is the housing situation? I saw something where workers were living in what amounted to man-sized cages .
As to transforming other worlds , it aint gonna happen , its far easier to just build an enclosed community , Domed. We're domed capt mainwaring!

GreatApe

AdrianC wrote: »

By not giving a toss about the environment and about wealth distribution internally.

One of the ways in which they're trying to totally eradicate poverty (absolute poverty, not just relative) by 2020 is by relocating entire villages from their old land to somewhere new.

This is just first world thinking

Sure they moved millions to make ways for roads trains hydropower ports power stations coal mines and everything else. Thats what has to be done to improve productivity

You may think oh no thats so bad and you may watch a few protesters on you tube but the reality is the average chinese is much much better off today than they were 30 years ago and will be much better off again in 30 years time

Its just propaganda to suggest things are not overall much better.
I hear the same by the dim who suggest life is so hard today and humans had it better in hunter gatherer days. :rotfl:

GreatApe

Nullboris wrote: »

I've never actually heard about how much wages and rent people get/pay in China? what is the housing situation? I saw something where workers were living in what amounted to man-sized cages .
As to transforming other worlds , it aint gonna happen , its far easier to just build an enclosed community , Domed. We're domed capt mainwaring!

There is too much nonsense on the topic and too much muddying of the waters and too much political VI to tell the whole truth so I would suggest Just take it to basics.

How many good quality homes are in china today vs 30 years ago. How many more will there be in china in 10 years time.

The first order answer is, there was close to no good quality homes in china 30 years ago. Today there are many good quality homes in china and in ten years time there will be an additional 100 million good quality homes in china.

Cost/rent/wages all that doesn't matter, 100 million (a huge number) more homes means many more (hundreds of millions) who did not have homes will have homes.

And this is not just a china story, people often go to china because it is a very populous country so the numbers are bigger but the story is more or less the same for all developing countries. Eg turkey would be another example of a country that has rapidly developed over the last 30 years. So it isn't something special about Chinese 'communism'.

AdrianC

GreatApe wrote: »

You may think oh no thats so bad and you may watch a few protesters on you tube but the reality is the average chinese is much much better off today than they were 30 years ago and will be much better off again in 30 years time

Mmm. The thing about "averages", by which I assume you mean "means", is that some are above and some are below.


There's a very rapidly growing middle-class in China, and a strong swathe of the superwealthy.

What there is also is a huge number of dirt-poor peasants living hand-to-mouth lives. Sure, it's nowhere near as big a percentage as it used to be, but a small percentage of a huge population is still a hell of a lot of people. The number on <$1.25/day (the global absolute poverty line) might be somewhere around 2% now, but that's still half the population of this country. About 4x that are still thought to live below the national poverty line (about $2/day), more than the entire population of Germany, about 1 in 12 of the population.

GreatApe

AdrianC wrote: »

Mmm. The thing about "averages", by which I assume you mean "means", is that some are above and some are below.

There's a very rapidly growing middle-class in China, and a strong swathe of the superwealthy.

What there is also is a huge number of dirt-poor peasants living hand-to-mouth lives. Sure, it's nowhere near as big a percentage as it used to be, but a small percentage of a huge population is still a hell of a lot of people. The number on <$1.25/day (the global absolute poverty line) might be somewhere around 2% now, but that's still half the population of this country. About 4x that are still thought to live below the national poverty line (about $2/day), more than the entire population of Germany, about 1 in 12 of the population.

So what exactly is your gripe?
That a country of over a billion people cant become first world overnight?

They went from close to 90% poverty to under 2% now and did that in just one generation.
I call that amazing and you seem to be calling it not good enough?
Do you know some other way they could have saved so many people so quickly?