Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
chris25

House Prices And Immigration

Recommended Posts

The past 10 years approximately 3 million people have moved into this nation, which has and will continue to have an unprecedented effect upon housing demand (and subsequently house prices).

There is not denying it whatsoever. If these 3 million weren't here then there would be far less demand for housing.

It is all very well moaning about it on message boards, but at the end of the day it isn't going to do anything.

Perhaps we should sign a petition. Can the government really ignore 2,3,4 or 5 million people signing this?

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/23

perhaps social media and the internet are the only way of getting through to our thick governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should sign a petition. Can the government really ignore 2,3,4 or 5 million people signing this?

Oh quite easily.

You need to buy a few MPs like Stephen "Taxi" Byers if you want anything done.

(Hope you have deep pockets.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House prices are neither determined soley by the population of a country or the supply of properties available but by the number of people with enough money or credit to pay for the houses on the market for purchase. Adding another 10 million paupers to the current inhabitants of Britain wont change that fact. Economic demand is not the same as a lot of people wanting something. If the latter was the case then we would all have luxury yachts moored at Antibes

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, No.

If you start a petition about changing planning legislation to free up lots of land to private individuals then I'll sign it.

Why? Fewer people is a much better solution than more houses, and it's blatant, obvious common sense that you can't have a population that perpetually increases. Happily shutting the door to immigration will achieve that without even having to consider any revolting dictatorial concepts like telling people whether or not they can have children. There's no good reason for not closing the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Fewer people is a much better solution than more houses, and it's blatant, obvious common sense that you can't have a population that perpetually increases. Happily shutting the door to immigration will achieve that without even having to consider any revolting dictatorial concepts like telling people whether or not they can have children. There's no good reason for not closing the door.

As an immigrant myself(to Switzerland), married to an immigrant, it would be odd if I agreed. There is plenty of space in the UK, but it lacks infrastructure and is poorly planned so seems crowded.

I'd suggest that restricting chav breeding would be a lot more beneficial for the UK than restricting immigration. It might be useful to raise the quality of immigration, but that's a different question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=152656&st=15

171. Professor Nickell, who advises the Government on affordable housing, said

that since 2000 the ratio of average house prices to average annual earnings

had risen from four to seven. If net immigration had been zero, house prices

would, according to Professor Nickell, still have risen to 6.5 times average

income (Q 49). Professor Nickell also forecast that, if the current rate of

house building is sustained for the next 20 years, house prices will rise to 9.3

times average income if there is zero net migration. But if there is 190,000

net immigration each year, house prices will rise to 10.5 times average

income—13% higher than they would be with zero migration (p 33).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=152656&st=15

171. Professor Nickell, who advises the Government on affordable housing, said

that since 2000 the ratio of average house prices to average annual earnings

had risen from four to seven. If net immigration had been zero, house prices

would, according to Professor Nickell, still have risen to 6.5 times average

income (Q 49). Professor Nickell also forecast that, if the current rate of

house building is sustained for the next 20 years, house prices will rise to 9.3

times average income if there is zero net migration. But if there is 190,000

net immigration each year, house prices will rise to 10.5 times average

income—13% higher than they would be with zero migration (p 33).

The key phrase.

Build better, and build more.

Stop the VIs and NIMBYs feathering their nests.

The UK is not Hong Kong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House prices are neither determined soley by the population of a country or the supply of properties available but by the number of people with enough money or credit to pay for the houses on the market for purchase. Adding another 10 million paupers to the current inhabitants of Britain wont change that fact. Economic demand is not the same as a lot of people wanting something. If the latter was the case then we would all have luxury yachts moored at Antibes

If an immigrant shares a room with 9 others, their bill will be a lot lower, but they still demand 1/10th of a room, adding to overall demand.

Lots of homes have been taken out of the market for supplying families, and instead have been allocated to this demand. This always pushes up prices.

You are right that economic demand is not the same as a lot of people wanting something. However, even with low incomes, this number of people will wield considerable economic demand in the housing marketplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3m has had an affect as they have all needed somewhere to live whether they have been buyers or not

in most cases they have rented and this has played into the hands of the BTL brigade

and it is they who have distorted the market situation.

Immigration particularly from less developed nations was a great boon for the wealthy,

plenty of peasants to do the work who had little knowledge of workers rights and were just grateful

to be able to earn multiples of what they could achieve in their homeland and a great source of rental income

Those who hit the benefits trail didnt matter as it was paid for by the general population via taxation something that the elite

are particularly adept at avoiding.

When the benefits system collapses ,then the indigenous population will be up in arms and complaining how they cannot

get a job cause them immigrunts huv taken them all innit.

Those same immigrants well then shoulder the blame for all their ills rather than the corrupt politicians and the elites who have

profitted very well from bringing them here in the first place.

If they do manage to find work then they will be competing with them for far lower wages and conditions .

And your solution ?

write a petition to the elite asking them to close the stable door

go on -I'm sure they will appreciate the comedy value of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an immigrant myself(to Switzerland), married to an immigrant, it would be odd if I agreed. There is plenty of space in the UK, but it lacks infrastructure and is poorly planned so seems crowded.

And because it is - is the noticeable difference between the UK and, say, France merely a result of better planning and infrastructure, or is it mostly the lower population density? I don't know Switzerland so I can't comment on whether or not you moving there means a similar thing for Switzerland. I've nothing against immigrants, just a relatively high population density that keeps increasing. Immigration is merely the cause of that, and the only reason for my objection to it. Getting it stable, whilst nowhere near ideal, at least means that it's possible to actually start doing something without raising the prospect of continual increase in busyness and the end of the gradual loss of attractiveness to development. It then merely becomes a question of changing things to find the ideal balance, which kills off most of my objection to building at any rate.

I'd suggest that restricting chav breeding would be a lot more beneficial for the UK than restricting immigration. It might be useful to raise the quality of immigration, but that's a different question.

Agreed, but it raises the much more unappealing prospect of telling people that they can't have kids. Mind you, removing all the incentments for them to have them is also another no-brainer. However, the simple fact is that population increase in the UK is largely immigration driven. I'd happily replace a load of our wastes of space for useful people from abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, No.

If you start a petition about changing planning legislation to free up lots of land to private individuals then I'll sign it.

Great idea. NOT.

World oil production is set to decline year on year whilst population growth increases exponentially.

We need more green land. We should be tearing down housing estates (we probably will in 10 years time anyway) to grow our own food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3m has had an affect as they have all needed somewhere to live whether they have been buyers or not

in most cases they have rented and this has played into the hands of the BTL brigade

and it is they who have distorted the market situation.

Immigration particularly from less developed nations was a great boon for the wealthy,

plenty of peasants to do the work who had little knowledge of workers rights and were just grateful

to be able to earn multiples of what they could achieve in their homeland and a great source of rental income

Those who hit the benefits trail didnt matter as it was paid for by the general population via taxation something that the elite

are particularly adept at avoiding.

When the benefits system collapses ,then the indigenous population will be up in arms and complaining how they cannot

get a job cause them immigrunts huv taken them all innit.

Those same immigrants well then shoulder the blame for all their ills rather than the corrupt politicians and the elites who have

profitted very well from bringing them here in the first place.

If they do manage to find work then they will be competing with them for far lower wages and conditions .

And your solution ?

write a petition to the elite asking them to close the stable door

go on -I'm sure they will appreciate the comedy value of it

You are right. It is too late now. Chaos probably ensues.

At no point in history has such a complex society been so far above carrying capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the density/cost arguement

see Ireland

possibly the biggest bubble of all occurred there and

its not exactly bursting at the seams and even after their price crash is still

very expensive when compared to Germany for example

But the Germans have excellent rental laws and high cgt on houses sold within 10 yrs of purchase

which leaves people much more spare cash to spend that actually does boost the economy

and gives them a far higher standard of living

Will they ever wake up ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an immigrant myself(to Switzerland), married to an immigrant, it would be odd if I agreed. There is plenty of space in the UK, but it lacks infrastructure and is poorly planned so seems crowded.

I'd suggest that restricting chav breeding would be a lot more beneficial for the UK than restricting immigration. It might be useful to raise the quality of immigration, but that's a different question.

I am agree with you that restricting breeding of chavs (actually I would just stop paying them to reproduce) and raising the quality of immigration would be good for the UK.

However bearing in mind that we have a welfare state, the idea that more people has no effect on the cost of housing seems strange to me.

I think immigration affects house prices in 2 ways

1) I know an immigrant who can not afford to buy a house, however for years she lived in a house owned by a BTL landlord (with us paying the rent) obviously if she had not been here then the BTL Landlord would have had to find another tennant. Enough people like these and it effects house prices. I myself pay my mortgage on a room that I rent to a lodger - usually a recent immigrant but not always. I would certainly have had trouble in the past paying my mortgage if we had had zero immigration.

2) It affects sentiment - I know BTL fans who justify it because of immigration. Even if they were 100% wrong (I doubt it look at 1) the effect of sentiment causes house prices to rise.

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the density/cost arguement

see Ireland

possibly the biggest bubble of all occurred there and

its not exactly bursting at the seams and even after their price crash is still

very expensive when compared to Germany for example

But the Germans have excellent rental laws and high cgt on houses sold within 10 yrs of purchase

which leaves people much more spare cash to spend that actually does boost the economy

and gives them a far higher standard of living

Will they ever wake up ?

Who?

The German bankers for being so silly letting their people have a higher standard of living when they could use VIs in the media and politicians to spread the word that debt is good and house prices only go up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....what about the people that don't live in this country, don't pay taxes in this country but buy cheap property because of the weak pound for hoard of value investment purposes....have more of a problem with that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea. NOT.

World oil production is set to decline year on year whilst population growth increases exponentially.

We need more green land. We should be tearing down housing estates (we probably will in 10 years time anyway) to grow our own food.

There is plenty of land. Check the figures, fly over the UK, see for yourself. It's all in the hands of VIs. Obviously it would be best to avoid building on the most fertile land, but there's enough of all types.

I'm with you on the food production, if everyone with a garden used it for growing food instead of poncing about with old railway sleepers doing garden makeovers that would help quite a lot.

Oil shortage is a temporary problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of land. Check the figures, fly over the UK, see for yourself. It's all in the hands of VIs. Obviously it would be best to avoid building on the most fertile land, but there's enough of all types.

I'm with you on the food production, if everyone with a garden used it for growing food instead of poncing about with old railway sleepers doing garden makeovers that would help quite a lot.

Oil shortage is a temporary problem.

We produce barely 60% of the food we need, and are net importers of energy (a position that is getting quickly worse). Huge trade deficit. Huge spending deficit.

Here are some approx population stats (people/km2):

Holland = 402

England = 395

UK = 255

Germany = 229

Switzerland = 188

China = 140

Scotland = 66

Simple arithmetic tells me that England is massively overpopulated for it to be viable long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of land. Check the figures, fly over the UK, see for yourself. It's all in the hands of VIs. Obviously it would be best to avoid building on the most fertile land, but there's enough of all types.

I'm with you on the food production, if everyone with a garden used it for growing food instead of poncing about with old railway sleepers doing garden makeovers that would help quite a lot.

Oil shortage is a temporary problem.

So you notice no differences between the UK and less densely populated countries, e.g. France with roughly the same population and twice as much land? And notice no benefit from the latter?

Edit to add: Funny you should mention flying. I've thought since I was a kid that England is a bit too crowded, but put that down to mostly seeing it from the view of major travel artieries that take you from city to city as quickly as possible, which would seem to over-emphasise busyness and built-upness (the whole route being busy, and the travel being slower in the urban areas, thus making the time spent getting through them disproportionate). The first time I got a clear night flight over England I decided that it wasn't just that.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We produce barely 60% of the food we need, and are net importers of energy (a position that is getting quickly worse). Huge trade deficit. Huge spending deficit.

Here are some approx population stats (people/km2):

Holland = 402

England = 395

UK = 255

Germany = 229

Switzerland = 188

China = 140

Scotland = 66

Simple arithmetic tells me that England is massively overpopulated for it to be viable long term.

How much more land could be used for food production?

Loads, is the answer.

For example, do we need pheasant shooting? There are many farms in the fertile south based around it. They run a few beef cattle on the fields and call themselves a farm, but really, they're a pheasant farm.

If it paid more to grow food(which it would if we couldn't get it cheap from abroad) we could grow a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you notice no differences between the UK and less densely populated countries, e.g. France with roughly the same population and twice as much land? And notice no benefit from the latter?

The main urban areas of France seem just as crowded and suffocating as the UK for the same reasons, poor planning and infrastructure(though better than the UK). Switzerland, however....

An even better example is Holland, it seems less crowded than the UK, but as the figures show, it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.