ARENAPUA

The Bank of Mum and Dad 'Its such a huge money. And guilt,

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

In fact if my neighbours house burnt down and his family moved in with us the ratio of households to dwelling would stay the same as we would now be one household, but there would be a shortage of housing.

 

Wouldn't the ratio change if there were empty dwellings? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

+0.5 I know some boomers who i) deny the problem exists ii) are very pro immigration iii) are very anti new homes and iv) anti any changes in the benefit system - they are responsible for the problem but holding back development and voting for parties that make the problem worse

Yes. They are not without blame, they vote and support the policies that have led to this shift of wealth...they lobby against housing provision, they are silent in the face of mass immigration. They lap up HPI....i am not going to say' Good luck to them' I am going to say they are the problem and I expect we may have to wait for them to die off before we see real change and a satisfactorily housed population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Household size is affected by families sharing 'iamnumerate' is right about that.

In fact, household size is, more or less, the average number of people per house, except it excludes empty houses and a few other small things.

However, household sizes are falling, so whatever the issues with overcrowding are they are less of an issue now, on average.

Of course, 'on average' hides distributional problems.  All we can say is that, overall, there are enough houses and there has not been a shortage.

Thats one of the problems with forecasts of housing shortage. If enough houses are built, household sizes fall.  

This gets extrapolated. Household sizes are falling, so we're going to need to build more. Circular logic.

The 2004 barker report acknowledges this, but then ignores it as have most other shortage forecasts that I have seen.

Population estimates do include illegal immigrants.  Obviously, they are estimates and there is some error involved.  For the shortage argument to work the error would have to be enormous. Bigger than is credible.  

It's the difference in scale between the increase in landlording, and the increase in debt, when compared to the increase in population, that proves beyond all doubt that the housing crisis is caused by finance and landlording.

It's not that Immigration isn't an issue, it's that we've built enough to cope with that issue, but not nearly enough to meet the demand from scrounging landlords.

 

Edited by DrBuyToLeech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2017 at 3:14 PM, Sour Mash said:

They need to get on with making the best of it and stop whining 

What makes you think younger people aren't 'getting on with making the best of it'? The employment rate has never been higher. Younger families are working themselves to the bone despite the meagre rewards on offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Just_Do_It said:

 

Wouldn't the ratio change if there were empty dwellings? 

Yes I think it would but my point is that the household is not a useful thing to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

Household size is affected by families sharing 'iamnumerate' is right about that.

 

 

Thank you

12 hours ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

Population estimates do include illegal immigrants.  Obviously, they are estimates and there is some error involved.  For the shortage argument to work the error would have to be enormous. Bigger than is credible. 

A few years ago Slough council found that the amount of sewage increased by 10% whilst official figures said that the population was declining.  That sounds an enormous error to me.  Incidentally I don't think they claimed that this was caused by illegal immigrants but also legal ones who were not counted.

Quote

The council has even obtained measurements of the Berkshire town's sewage flow, which has increased by more than 10 per cent between 2004/5 and 2005/6.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551602/Challenging-flawed-statistics.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Thank you

A few years ago Slough council found that the amount of sewage increased by 10% whilst official figures said that the population was declining.  That sounds an enormous error to me.  Incidentally I don't think they claimed that this was caused by illegal immigrants but also legal ones who were not counted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551602/Challenging-flawed-statistics.html

That's a load of crap. 😄

Seriously though, how much waste does the average person produce? How much does that fluctuate?  By person?  By age? By year?  

Does it include bath water? Sink water? Rain water?  Commercial waste? 

And how would we even get 'per capita expected turd volume' without using population figures?

Theres no way that sewage volume is anywhere near as reliable as a simple population estimate, nor are they independent.

And 10% nationally, which would be a big error (6 million missing people), is only just about enough to take us back to the household sizes of the 90s when prices were low because landlords were reviled and banks were cautious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

That's a load of crap. 😄

Seriously though, how much waste does the average person produce? How much does that fluctuate?  By person?  By age? By year?  

Does it include bath water? Sink water? Rain water?  Commercial waste? 

And how would we even get 'per capita expected turd volume' without using population figures?

Theres no way that sewage volume is anywhere near as reliable as a simple population estimate, nor are they independent.

And 10% nationally, which would be a big error (6 million missing people), is only just about enough to take us back to the household sizes of the 90s when prices were low because landlords were reviled and banks were cautious.

I don't know the answers to your questions and they are fair points.  However Slough did use other statistics to say that the figures were wrong

Quote

An increasing birth rate allied to a declining death rate; an increase in the numbers of households paying council tax and a sharp rise in the number of National Insurance applications are measures which, the council claims, are proof that its population is rising.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551602/Challenging-flawed-statistics.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 8:35 AM, iamnumerate said:

Yes I think it would but my point is that the household is not a useful thing to look at.

Some analysis here that breaks things down according to families, rather than households or dwellings:
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/home-affront-housing-across-the-generations/

Overall tenure looks to be about fall in social rented, rise in private rented and more recent fall in mortgaged ownership. The proportion of adults living in a family home is relatively unchanged and has fallen over the longer-term:
GtShgoP.png?1

 

For younger families the same factors dominate but with a rise in proportion of adults living in their parents' homes + notably larger rise in private rented + big fall in overall ownership:
DdPYvoh.png?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 1:30 PM, Sour Mash said:

No it's not - and I'm a (nominal) Catholic living in Northern Ireland so don't try pushing that ******** analogy with me.

The real problem is that the youth of today have zero understanding of WHY their lot isn't so great and are directing their anger in a simplistic, childlike manner at those who happen to have it better than themselves rather than look at the root causes that have caused the market distortions and exacerbated the wealth inequality to excessive levels.

This misdirection isn't an accident - keeping the masses at each others throats is a very effective way of ensuring that those on top stay there, and get away with filling their pockets.  Which ironically IS relevant to the background of the problems in NI and many other parts of the ex-British empire.

Fair points. I don't see anybody standing up for the new generation though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, guest_northshore said:

Some analysis here that breaks things down according to families, rather than households or dwellings:
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/home-affront-housing-across-the-generations/

Overall tenure looks to be about fall in social rented, rise in private rented and more recent fall in mortgaged ownership. The proportion of adults living in a family home is relatively unchanged and has fallen over the longer-term:
GtShgoP.png?1

 

For younger families the same factors dominate but with a rise in proportion of adults living in their parents' homes + notably larger rise in private rented + big fall in overall ownership:
DdPYvoh.png?1

Thanks for that, I find this bit amazing

Quote

After those born in 1946-50, every cohort has experienced lower home ownership rates than its predecessor at the same age. Today’s families headed by 30 year olds are only half as likely to own their home as the baby boomer generation was at the same age, and home ownership has declined across all regions and income groups.

This not surprising, if they need help with living, we would have to move in with them - the reverse would not be possible.

Quote

Millennials have also been more likely to be living with their parents in their mid-20s than previous cohorts, while families are much less likely to house their elderly parents than they were in the past.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2017 at 2:23 PM, iamnumerate said:

Thanks for that, I find this bit amazing

This not surprising, if they need help with living, we would have to move in with them - the reverse would not be possible.

This is a better analysis - saying both sides right and wrong. Although it's really about supply wrt housing availability and costs, rather than house prices.
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/blog/will-building-more-homes-help-to-reduce-housing-costs/

Not prices because their earnings to rents comparison is subject to index + presentation. eg. Same data sources, rebased from 2005 not 2011:

fHW39N3.png?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.