50% house price crash does not = more affordable homes

GreatApe

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

How? It's not going to increase the supply of new houses, and all the 2nd, 3rd, etc buyers up the chain are all ultimately dependent on someone having a new house to move to.

The proposition seems obviously true to me. Even if we had a revolution and house prices crashed to nil it's still not going to build any new ones. We'd all live in poverty in crumbling houses it was no-one's responsibility to maintain, until the state had a massive programme of building shoddy workers' housing blocks.

The proposition seems obviously true to me.

Yes even if house prices crashed 99% they are no more affordable

Another way of saying this is, what scenario can you imagine where property in the uk is 99% off

Lets see. Lets pretend somehow food prices rocketed to 50 x what they are. We all still need to eat and there is mass poverty now. House prices are trading at 1% of their former value. Are homes more affordable...no because you have so much less money to spend on housing (the good news is, at lest income inequality crash in this utopia of food poverty)

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

And of course a lot if not most of that immigration was from outside the EU, so will presumably continue even after Brexit.

It is also a multiplier if the migrants are young and I suspect many are

For each young woman we import, the population will in time go up by 5
It is them +1
they have two kids +2
Their kids have net +2 kids
Population up by 5 and host nation lost the same 5

GreatApe

Chrysalis wrote: »

the problem right now is a lack of social homes

This is a totally empty statement it is truly meaningless

In the UK councils vary from below 10% social housing to almost 50% social housing
And I would wager you and many people like you think your statement is a universal truth that even areas that are close to 50% social housing there is a lack of social homes.....

No...there isnt
Plus the title of a house is almost irrelevant
If the government decided to buy 100,000 homes off right now today and call them social what have you achieved?

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

More accurately, if you want to know who'll own property after a crash, look at who owned it before.

Average property transacts roughly once every 23 years
So whoever owns this year...more or less owns next year too

Only about 1% of non home owners become home owners in any given year that is the extent of who will benefit or be harmed by a hpc

lisyloo

triathlon wrote: »

No complaints from me, I still living in hope that the immigration work ethic rubs off on those helping themselves to the £100's Billions in welfare payments, they can double intake as far as I am concerned.

I thought you did start a thread about increasing numbers of people living in vans??

triathlon

lisyloo wrote: »

I thought you did start a thread about increasing numbers of people living in vans??

Yes, while claiming housing benefit

Chrysalis

GreatApe wrote: »

This is a totally empty statement it is truly meaningless

In the UK councils vary from below 10% social housing to almost 50% social housing
And I would wager you and many people like you think your statement is a universal truth that even areas that are close to 50% social housing there is a lack of social homes.....

No...there isnt
Plus the title of a house is almost irrelevant
If the government decided to buy 100,000 homes off right now today and call them social what have you achieved?

Compared to demand there is a lack of social homes.

Some councils are so overburdened with demand they even closed applications to get on the housing register, to claim there is no social housing crisis is an admittance that you are extremely out of touch.

If you want hard figures backing it up look at the 10s of billions paid out annually by the government to subsidise people private renting (this money going to private landlords) who would be prime candidates for social housing if it was available.

If the government brought 100k social homes today and rented them out what have they achieved?

Well given that private rental provides no security past 6-12 months in most cases, and typically costs 25-30% more than social rent (at the bottom end of the private market), I think the answer is obvious, you have supplied 100 thousand affordable secure accommodation to the population. Ironically tho I am not sure that would be enough as the crisis is so bad now with 4 decades of practically no social homes been built.

Also its more of a problem in certain sized properties than others e.g. for one bed properties its at its worst, and for 3+ bed properties its at it least severe.

Although I would prefer the government to build the houses rather than buy them, although buying them is still vastly better than doing nothing.

Of course if there was enough social properties to satisfy demand then I would expect the private rental market to contract 70-80%. It would crash. This may or may not have an impact on house prices (this thread's topic), but I dont think it would trigger a 50% crash. My reasoning behind that is it is my opinion that the private rental market for the most part is not fit for purpose, it is only thriving because people need a roof over their head and out of desperation take what they can get, most people who rent privately probably fall into one of the following categories.

~They are unemployed or in a part time job, long term renter - prime candidate for social homes.
~They are full time employed but fail affordability tests for a mortgage due to low wage, high rent ironically prevents them from saving to improve affordability - another prime candidate for social homes
~They are full time employed but struggling to find long term sustainable employment, working for agencies etc., likely failing mortgage requirements, another prime candidate for social homes.
The bulk of renters I think are the above.

The below I think makes up the remaining 30% or so.
~They recently split up from partner, lost home because of it.
~They are a student.
~They move around a lot, they want flexibility.
~They rent luxury high end apartments.
~Its out of choice to rent long term and could afford a mortgage, maybe just prefer to rent. (I dont think this is many people).
~Renting temporarily, plans to buy a home.

If everyone was given a choice and didnt have outside factors limiting their decision the majority would choose to either buy their home or rent socially, I doubt people volunteer to overpay rent and have little security. The reason the private rental market is as big as it is is due to an under supply of social housing.

Now you may argue there is specific pockets in the country where social housing is empty, but I will remind you that one cannot apply to live in social housing in a different area without a local link. There is also a reason hostels exist as well as councils putting people in hotel rooms, many areas, cannot even house all their homeless people, never mind the people who already have a roof over their head. So for you to think there is plentiful supply of social homes is just baffling.

Back in 1997 when I put my name on the waiting list (before was housing registers), I was told its a 7-8 year waiting list. Now do you think demand has gone up or down since 1997?

I expect the mistake you have made is to assume the following.

1 - Everyone who wants on the housing register can get on it.
2 - Everyone on the register is able to get housed.
3 - Everyone renting privately has done so out of choice rather than desperation.

The housing charity a family member of mine works for 9/10 people referred from the council are put in a hostel, the 10% or so who get housed, are usually very high priority people like single mums exiting a dangerous relationship.

I will also comment on brexit and immigration since I See it mentioned in this thread.

There is an assumption that if we brexit, then immigration will plummet, the reality is we need immigrants, so the probable outcome is we will replace EU immigrants with non EU immigrants, and net immigration will be a comparable number to what it is now. In addition if immigration falls, then expect the economy to contract, its fairly simple, less people = smaller economy. Its basic economics. The reasons for problems in our society such as lack of affordable housing is not because of the EU or immigration, its a governance problem stemming from pretending there is no housing crisis and/or not investing in infrastructure to fix these problems, when was the last time a new town was built e.g.? We in an era where everyone is out for themselves, there is extreme selfishness, low taxation, a hatred of tax increases, and a lack of investment in public services. Its no wonder threads like this exist, because its inevitable with how the country is currently governed.

lisyloo

triathlon wrote: »

Yes, while claiming housing benefit

But you’re saying you have no complaints?

triathlon

lisyloo wrote: »

But you’re saying you have no complaints?

I am not sure what you are getting at, I have always been against people slumming in vans while being HB for a proper home, even is they were not getting HB I am against it, I have always said that

lisyloo

Let me explain then.

You were complaining about people slumming it in vans.
It was coffeehound (#51) who said these people are mostly economic immigrants which I took at face value.

You have said you don’t have any complaints about immigrants even though they appear to be the same people you are complaining about slumming it in vans on another thread.