Why are house prices still so high?

lisyloo

Malthusian wrote: »

You say compromise on location, I say get a nicer house in exchange for doing a bit more driving or cycling.

Depends on where you live.
In London or even expensive areas around the SE the train fares can be very high.
Some places aren't practical to drive i.e. no cheap or free parking and not everyone can or is willing to cycle in all weathers depending on what they need to carry.

It's very easy to say "move" which is a bit like saying "get a house" to a homeless person or "get a job" for a jobless person.
For people with careers and certain skills or perhaps in their 50's and/or perhaps not in the best health it isn't always easy just to up sticks and get another job even if they did want to leave all their families/friends and perhaps caring obligations.

I'm not sure how we have bus drivers and nurses in London and other expensive cities (perhaps they bought a house ages ago or RTB) but I think we will get a problem in future, so if you want nurses, police(wo)men, fire(wo)men, teachers, bus drivers in the more expensive parts of the country then I think we need a strategy especially if we want to clamp down on immigration.

phillw

Malthusian wrote: »

Why? Do we need to give Vauxhall incentives to make mid-range cars because they would make more money from selling Lamborghini-esque vehicles?

Lambourghini went bankrupt and passed between several owners before being rescued by Audi.

I think you'd have to give Vauxhall incentives to make that type of car instead of the mid-range ones.

Cars and property aren't really comparable. Property generally appreciates, Cars generally depreciate.

lisyloo wrote: »

then I think we need a strategy especially if we want to clamp down on immigration.

The problem is that the type of people who want to clamp down on immigration because it's unfair they come to our country etc, is that they also don't like it when people get subsidised housing in places they'd like to live but can't.

The strategy has to be being prepared to move out of London if you can't afford to live there, then the employers in london will be forced to pay more. Everything else is just resentment.

Malthusian

GreatApe wrote: »

No species lasts forever and we will see the end of humans this century even if you disagree with software AI we will certainly have advanced genetic engineering this century which will change us more than the last 1 million years did

You and AG47 are the same person.

Exactly the same writing style with long rambling sentences that trail off into a lack of a full stop. Obsession with outlandish predictions. And AG47's initials are the same as yours backwards.

Your predictions are over a longer timeframe and can't be proved wrong within the lifespan of a forum thread, unlike AG47's, and more pertinently your predictions are always Emmet-from-the-Lego-Movie upbeat whereas AG47's are always doom-laden. This only reinforces my theory that you log into the AG47 account to indulge your inner Jeremiah. Most people without two accounts would post a mix of negativity and positivity, even if slanted to one side.

Can't believe I took so long to realise it. I hope that AG47 is your troll alt and not the other way round.

lisyloo

phillw wrote: »

The problem is that the type of people who want to clamp down on immigration because it's unfair they come to our country etc, is that they also don't like it when people get subsidised housing in places they'd like to live but can't.

The strategy has to be being prepared to move out of London if you can't afford to live there, then the employers in london will be forced to pay more. Everything else is just resentment.

I don’t recall mentioning subsidies.
Only cheaply built e.g. prefab, properties were mentioned.

Not being able to recruit key workers in London (or many cities or expensive towns/villages) or to pay a premium seems an odd aspiration/strategy.

Also moving people who are contributing to the economy by caring for an elderly person or providing free childcare doesn’t make much economic sense either. I don’t think people will move from their dependent parents or grandchildren out of choice BTW. Not everyone is economically mobile, some would prefer to be poor/claiming benefits but looking after their family and before you claim lazy/scrounger you’re the one who’s saying they shouldn’t stay somewhere they can’t afford to buy and putting them in an impossible situation.

How do you think this will resolve itself in future?

I can see immigrants who are prepared to share bedrooms being the only ones prepared to put up with it and us continuing to make zero effort to meet any fake immigration targets. (I am personally very pro immigrants and immigration BTW).

GreatApe

Malthusian wrote: »

You and AG47 are the same person.

Exactly the same writing style with long rambling sentences that trail off into a lack of a full stop. Obsession with outlandish predictions. And AG47's initials are the same as yours backwards.

You know I have been waking up more tired than I should be and the days have been blurring together the last few months and my normal productivity has been shot to !!!!......I hope this version of me prevails rather than AG47

Your predictions are over a longer timeframe and can't be proved wrong within the lifespan of a forum thread, unlike AG47's, and more pertinently your predictions are always Emmet-from-the-Lego-Movie upbeat whereas AG47's are always doom-laden. This only reinforces my theory that you log into the AG47 account to indulge your inner Jeremiah. Most people without two accounts would post a mix of negativity and positivity, even if slanted to one side.

Can't believe I took so long to realise it. I hope that AG47 is your troll alt and not the other way round.

I !!!!ing hope so too :rotfl:


While I want to say I am not AG47 it is not a zero probability, I have been questioning this reality and getting bored in this sim

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t recall mentioning subsidies.
Only cheaply built e.g. prefab, properties were mentioned.

Not being able to recruit key workers in London (or many cities or expensive towns/villages) or to pay a premium seems an odd aspiration/strategy.

Also moving people who are contributing to the economy by caring for an elderly person or providing free childcare doesn’t make much economic sense either. I don’t think people will move from their dependent parents or grandchildren out of choice BTW. Not everyone is economically mobile, some would prefer to be poor/claiming benefits but looking after their family and before you claim lazy/scrounger you’re the one who’s saying they shouldn’t stay somewhere they can’t afford to buy and putting them in an impossible situation.

How do you think this will resolve itself in future?

I can see immigrants who are prepared to share bedrooms being the only ones prepared to put up with it and us continuing to make zero effort to meet any fake immigration targets. (I am personally very pro immigrants and immigration BTW).

There is no shortage of homes, there is an excess of social properties especially in inner London but that is about it

Sell off 500,000 social homes in London move the 1.2 million tenants out to the north somewhere and you solve most of London and the SE problems and it can be done fairly quickly

phillw

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t recall mentioning subsidies.
Only cheaply built e.g. prefab, properties were mentioned.

Social housing always ends up being subsidised, because it's maintained by the tax payer and the cost isn't passed on. Even if there is no direct subsidy it still turns into a "it's not fair that we don't have those here" arguments.

lisyloo wrote: »

Not being able to recruit key workers in London (or many cities or expensive towns/villages) or to pay a premium seems an odd aspiration/strategy.

Why? Unless there is a problem "I can't hire anyone for this position" then why would you spend any money to solve it?

lisyloo

phillw wrote: »

Social housing always ends up being subsidised, because it's maintained by the tax payer and the cost isn't passed on. Even if there is no direct subsidy it still turns into a "it's not fair that we don't have those here" arguments.

We’re not talking about social housing.
We’re talking about privately owned affordable accommodation.
The tax payer does not maintain private homes.

#rant - it’s a lot annoying when people just make stuff up #end rant

Why? Unless there is a problem "I can't hire anyone for this position" then why would you spend any money to solve it?

I think there will be a problem if there isn’t already - we already have a shortage of nurses - which I’m not claiming is entirely down to housing.

Just a practical consideration - but can you get mortgages on prefabs?

Goldman2020

Prefabs these days are not like the ones built during WW2 they are much better.
I think modular housing is worth considering.

phillw

lisyloo wrote: »

We’re not talking about social housing.
We’re talking about privately owned affordable accommodation.

In which case any reduction in house building costs will increase the profit to the builder, it won't be passed onto the buyers. They are competing on the market with normal houses, how much it cost to build is irrelevant

Unless you buy the land and get it built yourself, but it's a lot of hassle to do that & there will be extra costs with doing it on an individual basis.