118er Getting Roasted on Mumsnet...

[Locke]

37 minutes ago, PopGun said:

What about those who come here to work for next to nothing? Your logic seems to fly in the face of this article on the other thread:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/08/slaves-working-in-uk-construction-and-car-washes-report-finds

Welcome to Galtistan.

Criminal gangs enslaving people don't have the regulatory burden which destroys legitimate businesses. If things like minimum wage, equality laws and tax burden hadn't crushed entrepreneurship, I doubt these criminals would be able to compete.

Good job, by the way, government, on ensuring everyone is paid a "fair" wage and is not enslaved. Score one for Statism.

Besides, in the broad sense, these operations are still subsidised by workers via taxation which pays for the infrastructure which enables these jobs.

[PopGun]

9 minutes ago, SOLZHENITSYN said:

Define next to nothing? How does their hourly rate compare to their home country? How much benefits do they receive?

even if no benefits, so long as they can earn materially more than at home, they will come. Perhaps not to stay for good, but maybe a 5 year stint to send money home to support family/buy a home. Then they leave, to be replaced by the next wave.

the article states examples of people earning £10 a shift...

That will take a lot of saving... meanwhile wage arbitrage continues its relentless march to the bottom for ALL concerned. Those who are eager to mention wages finding their true market level should check out what they're job counterparts earn in the developing econimies before casting any stones. Then cross compare this to living costs.

[PopGun]

3 minutes ago, Locke said:

Criminal gangs enslaving people don't have the regulatory burden which destroys legitimate businesses. If things like minimum wage, equality laws and tax burden hadn't crushed entrepreneurship, I doubt these criminals would be able to compete.

Wow there it is folks. Enjoy your freedom.

[iamnumerate]

19 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

In absolute terms an increase of over 4m in the space of a decade is massive and I think that it is unique by historical standards so I think that it is disingenuous to play it down. 

Relative increases are not really meaningful in this context. We live in a country with finite space and resources.

 

It does mean that we will double our population in 120 years, which as we have finite space for wildlife does seem a bad thing.

This book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grey-Daggers-Minotaurs-Greenwich-Park/dp/1782802061

describes wildlife in outer London in the 1940s which would be unheard of today. 

I really don't want people in 70 years ago saying that it is hard to believe there was so much wildlife in place x in 1918 - but it is now all built up.

Edited May 8, 2018 by iamnumerate
Mathematical error - now corrected

[PopGun]

16 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

It does mean that we will double our population in 120 years, which as we have finite space for

Which is why it won't happen, as  imo a critical mass will be reached. Trends go down as well as up, even house prices occasionally..

[iamnumerate]

2 minutes ago, PopGun said:

Which is why it won't happen, as  imo a critical mass will be reached. Trends go down as well as up, even house prices occasionally..

Only if we care about wildlife, historic places, green space etc.  I am sure that if we didn't mind wiping out a lot of rare species, concreting over stonehenge etc we could have a lot more than 130 million people in the UK.

[PopGun]

2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Only if we care about wildlife, historic places, green space etc.  I am sure that if we didn't mind wiping out a lot of rare species, concreting over stonehenge etc we could have a lot more than 130 million people in the UK.

imo we won't peak anywhere near that. Affordablly extractionable fossil fuels are running out. Renewables won't pay off in time. Resources (water/food) will become more and more stretched. I seriously seriously doubt human population growth rate won't turn drastically negative, even in developing/third world countries unless some major game changer arrives. Even then as you say, you can't event more physical finite space.

[iamnumerate]

5 minutes ago, PopGun said:

imo we won't peak anywhere near that. Affordablly extractionable fossil fuels are running out. Renewables won't pay off in time. Resources (water/food) will become more and more stretched. I seriously seriously doubt human population growth rate won't turn drastically negative, even in developing/third world countries unless some major game changer arrives. Even then as you say, you can't event more physical finite space.

I think you are right we won't get to that nightmare, but even at the moment we are thinking about destroying vital habitat for more homes

https://www.landlove.com/article/3196/nightingale-stronghold-threatened-by-housing-plans

Quote

A local council has ignored the strong reaction from over 12,000 people to instead plough on with plans that would threaten one of the last bastions for nightingales in England

Now, the council have responded by publishing a new draft Local Plan that designates land at and around Lodge Hill as being a suitable site for thousands of new houses.

The decision to include Lodge Hill goes against national planning rules that are designed to protect key natural spaces, along with the local authority’s own pledge to look after important wildlife spots. It has also sparked concerns that other protected sites could now end up threatened too.

 

[anonlymouse]

22 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

It does mean that we will double our population in 120 years, which as we have finite space for wildlife does seem a bad thing.

This book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Grey-Daggers-Minotaurs-Greenwich-Park/dp/1782802061

describes wildlife in outer London in the 1940s which would be unheard of today. 

I really don't want people in 70 years ago saying that it is hard to believe there was so much wildlife in place x in 1918 - but it is now all built up.

The built environment occupies about 6% of the UK's landmass, with much of that being low density suburbia. You could easily double to population without doubling the amount that's built on if people weren't so obsessed with their 'detached' shoeboxes.

[dances with sheeple]

On ‎07‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 12:32, TryingToWin said:

I understand that but the landmass is fixed.

The defining factor in MORE or LESS price is going to be MORE or LESS population.

They aren't taking immigrants, there's no upward pressure on prices. We however, are taking immigrants, massive amounts in fact.

The reason we cannot be compared to Japan is because of immigration policy. Japanese immigration policy is essentially beyond UKIP, its BNP level stuff (99% JAPANESE) ,  its quite apparent now that your not going to get that in the UK.

The weird position this forum is in, is that its a choice between Tory or Labour.

Tory historically are going to protect home owners, but they are trying to get immigration down which helps supply/demand.

Labour historically are for the disenfranchised renters such as this forum, but they are massively pro-immigration.

Pick your poison.

Why has the property market been propped up on emergency near zero interest rates for ten years in that case?

[iamnumerate]

8 minutes ago, anonlymouse said:

The built environment occupies about 6% of the UK's landmass, with much of that being low density suburbia. You could easily double to population without doubling the amount that's built on if people weren't so obsessed with their 'detached' shoeboxes.

So the solution is to reduce the size of UK homes or make them more crowded areas?  Although good for the environment there are other problems.

[Ah-so]

19 minutes ago, anonlymouse said:

The built environment occupies about 6% of the UK's landmass, with much of that being low density suburbia. You could easily double to population without doubling the amount that's built on if people weren't so obsessed with their 'detached' shoeboxes.

Given a choice between having 65m people and a 'detached' shoebox vs 130m people and an even worse version of the shoebox, I know which I'd opt for.

[iamnumerate]

23 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:

Why has the property market been propped up on emergency near zero interest rates for ten years in that case?

Not just the property market, there are a lot of zombie companies out there.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/25/end-qe-will-slay-zombie-companies-top-investor-warns/

Quote

“As interest rates begin to meaningfully rise, companies that have been able to borrow cheaply and roll over debt will be exposed. These are the zombie firms that in a normal rate cycle would no longer exist. Central bankers have inadvertently managed to stem natural attrition, something which is paramount for healthy capital markets, with a knock-on effect on the flow of money into new enterprises. Eventually, the natural order must prevail.”

 

[Riedquat]

3 hours ago, Locke said:

It's entirely a problem of benefits. Firstly, welfare is stealing money from people who create wealth and giving it to those who do not, which is a huge incentive for people to come here and not work. Without that system, this kind of immigrant simply does not exist.

Secondly, without welfare, the kind of immigrant which comes here is the one which generates wealth- this is the kind of immigrant we as a country want and need and is the one shitlibs are constantly harping on about when they manipulate debate. Welfare discourages this kind of immigrant, because they will simply be taxed to pay for the parasitical type mentioned above.

Remove welfare and these problems go away- rents crash, house prices crash, wages rise and essential goods fall in price.

Ideally the only immigration we should encourage consists of so few people that it's insignificant. I firmly believe that every country should supply the skills it needs itself. Because the numbers of such people produced will never quite match there's scope for a bit of immigration around the edge, and also because the demand will go up and down a bit, but overall the levels should be small. I don't agree with simply importing people instead of training them no matter how useful they are, that's parasitical. And when we do have to need not wealth generation should be the only concern.

edit: Oh, and even if everything is balanced there should still be the ability for people to move countries if they wish, if you've got things set up right they'll mostly cancel each other out.

Anyway, this was about population levels and their impact on housing; IMO immigration is a large driver of population growth, and hence downright bad, but it would be interesting to know some figures over the last few decades, taking in to account the second generation too.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Riedquat

[dances with sheeple]

22 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Not just the property market, there are a lot of zombie companies out there.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/25/end-qe-will-slay-zombie-companies-top-investor-warns/

 

Good article. Bloomberg were focussing recently on the fact that more investors are selling companies deemed to be a debt risk. It is going to get interesting soon, the can has been kicked nearly back to it`s atomic structure by now.

[anonlymouse]

35 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

So the solution is to reduce the size of UK homes or make them more crowded areas?  Although good for the environment there are other problems.

Nah homes don't need to get any smaller than they already are. I just mean people should be a bit more accepting of having a terrace house or living in flats rather than living in a noddy box in an estate of nowhere. 
Higher density means that public transport becomes more viable and parks etc can outweigh the loss of garden space.

[iamnumerate]

2 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:

Good article. Bloomberg were focussing recently on the fact that more investors are selling companies deemed to be a debt risk. It is going to get interesting soon, the can has been kicked nearly back to it`s atomic structure by now.

Of course it is almost a year old now.  We have been talking about zombie companies for a very long time.

[iamnumerate]

4 minutes ago, anonlymouse said:

Nah homes don't need to get any smaller than they already are. I just mean people should be a bit more accepting of having a terrace house or living in flats rather than living in a noddy box in an estate of nowhere. 
Higher density means that public transport becomes more viable and parks etc can outweigh the loss of garden space.

Terrace house maybe - but not flats, I spent 5 years living with idiots living above me, flooding me every now and again - not an experience I want to experience again.

[Riedquat]

59 minutes ago, anonlymouse said:

The built environment occupies about 6% of the UK's landmass, with much of that being low density suburbia. You could easily double to population without doubling the amount that's built on if people weren't so obsessed with their 'detached' shoeboxes.

Rather more than 6% by any meaningful measure, most of the estimates that put it that low really try to twist the definition to say "look, it isn't that much." In any case all it tells us is that whatever the number is that number is too much, considering how noticeable it is (and how rapidly it's changed - look at maps from a mere century ago). Greater numbers also put pressure on in other ways even if you cram them into the same space effectively, and yes, more effective use of land could be made (as has already been pointed out the best old terraces are pretty decent housing). More motorways etc., which make their presence felt for quite some distance.

Clearly there are quite a lot of people who couldn't give too hoots about that and only get bothered by what's hitting them in the face, but since a growing population isn't doing them any favours either, even if they're numb to the downsides...

[iamnumerate]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

 Greater numbers also put pressure on in other ways even if you cram them into the same space effectively, and yes, more effective use of land could be made (as has already been pointed out the best old terraces are pretty decent housing). More motorways etc., which make their presence felt for quite some distance.

 

Very true, although perhaps we should not travel very much as well to cope with growing populations, just travel the minimum for work and spend all our leisure time in our flats watching tv, or online?

(Not my desired idea but similar to having smaller homes to help cope with the lack of space caused by population increase.)

[Riedquat]

4 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Very true, although perhaps we should not travel very much as well to cope with growing populations, just travel the minimum for work and spend all our leisure time in our flats watching tv, or online?

(Not my desired idea but similar to having smaller homes to help cope with the lack of space caused by population increase.)

Travelling for work is most of travelling. Maybe working from home increasing will counteract that a bit, although I'm not really keen on the idea of working from home. I like to keep home and work separate, and in any case all it really is about is companies trying to get office space for free. Ease of travel has created more requirements to travel (businesses end up centralising etc.), it's hard to see that coming to an end.

Small homes aren't necessarily a problem, up to a point, but a general unpleasant living environment (not just in the house, the entire area) is. A two up, two down is fine for a single person or couple but not great with kids (just don't think about how many people lived in them when they were new!)

[iamnumerate]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Travelling for work is most of travelling. Maybe working from home increasing will counteract that a bit, although I'm not really keen on the idea of working from home. I like to keep home and work separate, and in any case all it really is about is companies trying to get office space for free. Ease of travel has created more requirements to travel (businesses end up centralising etc.), it's hard to see that coming to an end.

Small homes aren't necessarily a problem, up to a point, but a general unpleasant living environment (not just in the house, the entire area) is. A two up, two down is fine for a single person or couple but not great with kids (just don't think about how many people lived in them when they were new!)

True, the way things are going we could soon go back to Victorian levels of overcrowding!

[tomandlu]

2 hours ago, Locke said:

The fact is, welfare is stealing money from people who are working and handing it to people who are not and that is fundamentally wrong.

The only fundamentally wrong thing you can do with welfare is to break the golden rule - you should always gain financially by working. Labour, under Brown and Blair, managed to **** that one up good and proper.

[tomandlu]

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Only if we care about wildlife, historic places, green space etc.  I am sure that if we didn't mind wiping out a lot of rare species, concreting over stonehenge etc we could have a lot more than 130 million people in the UK.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, if you care about the environment, then some housing with decent sized gardens is what you need - not vast fields of monoculture crops, which are literally deserts as far as wildlife is concerned.

[iamnumerate]

3 minutes ago, tomandlu said:

As I've mentioned elsewhere, if you care about the environment, then some housing with decent sized gardens is what you need - not vast fields of monoculture crops, which are literally deserts as far as wildlife is concerned.

But we don't just build homes where monoculture crops were being farmed (which would be good if we can get the food without cutting down other nature reserves).

In Kent as I mentioned elsewhere they want to built on a SSI

https://www.landlove.com/article/3196/nightingale-stronghold-threatened-by-housing-plans

Canvey Island nature reserve also almost became homes.