Inside the housing crisis: Why I live in a cupboard

[Saving For a Space Ship]

Inside the housing crisis: Why I live in a cupboard

Tales from the frontline

Vicky Spratt 3 November 2018

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/1e6c9bcb-31b9-493b-9018-f6f4b94f9552

Edited November 3, 2018 by Saving For a Space Ship

[zugzwang]

24 minutes ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

Inside the housing crisis: Why I live in a cupboard

Tales from the frontline

Vicky Spratt 3 November 2018

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/1e6c9bcb-31b9-493b-9018-f6f4b94f9552

The continuous subdivision of the existing housing stock = hpi +++ forever. George Osborne's Plan A.

Build-to-Rent is one better. Dog kennel sized properties from the start but at a much higher density.

[Wayward]

This is the problem with the argument that rents are restricted by affordability....afraid not. If competitive bidding intensifies folks will simply pay all they can afford for less.

[winkie]

Good chance that people who are forced to live like dogs turn into dogs......dog eat dog world.....?

[Lord D'arcy Pew]

A way to improve affordability is to drop the Islington socialists houses prices  by +50%

The (consumerist communists)will always look at other options. Their greed is not their problem, someone else is always to blame.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Lord D'arcy Pew

[Pebbles]

1 hour ago, Wayward said:

This is the problem with the argument that rents are restricted by affordability....afraid not. If competitive bidding intensifies folks will simply pay all they can afford for less.

Indeed this argument about rents can't increase quicker than wages is largely rubbish.

[maverick73]

Unfortunately, we're living in a supply and demand crux. Being within the freedom of movement, has driven up demand for accommodation, as many with prefer a UK life, over the other 27 member countries.

Governments who propping up prices since Year 2000, with many MP's acting as landlords

Low Interest rates to attract young into spending beyond means... forcing them into a continuous life of debt.

It is what it is. 

[North London Rent Girl]

21 hours ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

Inside the housing crisis: Why I live in a cupboard

Tales from the frontline

Vicky Spratt 3 November 2018

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/1e6c9bcb-31b9-493b-9018-f6f4b94f9552

I got through the first two, am too upset to read on - one young person who had been in the care system, now trying to raise her baby in a shipping container, another with mental health difficulties being 'no fault' evicted. FFS, why on earth can we not take some money away from the vilers with unspendable quantities of the stuff and take care of these people. What happened to us?

'Although they eventually found another flat, Tom is still angry about it now. “That experience made me feel like our society doesn’t care about the young and the vulnerable," he says.' Such polite understatement.

Edited November 4, 2018 by North London Rent Girl

[ebull]

22 hours ago, maverick73 said:

Unfortunately, we're living in a supply and demand crux. Being within the freedom of movement, has driven up demand for accommodation, as many with prefer a UK life, over the other 27 member countries.

The reasoning is incorrect IMO.

The cause is that benefits paid high rents for all newcomers using FOM regardless of their UK-tax-or-NI-payment-history.

Freedom of movement alone exists in many other attractive EU countries where the same effect has not been seen.

Our past governments [Blair-Brown-Cameron] should be blamed not FOM. The current gov has not yet fixed the problem either.

Simply require a few years tax residency before benefits can be claimed and a lot of housing problems will be fixed almost overnight. This is what all our EU neighbours did and do.

[maverick73]

42 minutes ago, ebull said:

The reasoning is incorrect IMO.

The cause is that benefits paid high rents for all newcomers using FOM regardless of their UK-tax-or-NI-payment-history.

Freedom of movement alone exists in many other attractive EU countries where the same effect has not been seen.

Our past governments [Blair-Brown-Cameron] should be blamed not FOM. The current gov has not yet fixed the problem either.

Simply require a few years tax residency before benefits can be claimed and a lot of housing problems will be fixed almost overnight. This is what all our EU neighbours did and do.

Benefits are a myth to me. If an average earner take in £2000 per month.. after tax... do they qualify for benefits? 

From my prespective they all come to bank pounds, and will leave accordingly. The ones who stay behind will expereince a squeeze, as inflation is chomping away at standard living costs... henec why food banks are becoming more the norm. 

[GregBowman]

48 minutes ago, ebull said:

The reasoning is incorrect IMO.

The cause is that benefits paid high rents for all newcomers using FOM regardless of their UK-tax-or-NI-payment-history.

Freedom of movement alone exists in many other attractive EU countries where the same effect has not been seen.

Our past governments [Blair-Brown-Cameron] should be blamed not FOM. The current gov has not yet fixed the problem either.

Simply require a few years tax residency before benefits can be claimed and a lot of housing problems will be fixed almost overnight. This is what all our EU neighbours did and do.

You are right its not FOM per se

1. We speak the worlds language

2. We have an unbelievably generous welfare system

3. We are easy going and accepting

4. We have a capitalist system that favours rentiers and encourages volume low skilled labour rather than vocational training or paying skilled workers

Therefore FOM is just the symptom not the problem, we are a draw for millions because of the above

[simvastatin]

 

I would rather live in a Shoe in Islington, than move out of London

[happyguy]

On 03/11/2018 at 14:14, Lord D'arcy Pew said:

A way to improve affordability is to drop the Islington socialists houses prices  by +50%

So if you owned a home you would be happy to sell it for half of what someone would be prepared to pay for it? 

 

19 hours ago, ebull said:

The reasoning is incorrect IMO.

The cause is that benefits paid high rents for all newcomers using FOM regardless of their UK-tax-or-NI-payment-history.

Freedom of movement alone exists in many other attractive EU countries where the same effect has not been seen.

Our past governments [Blair-Brown-Cameron] should be blamed not FOM. The current gov has not yet fixed the problem either.

Simply require a few years tax residency before benefits can be claimed and a lot of housing problems will be fixed almost overnight. This is what all our EU neighbours did and do.

I disagree. Other nations have not experienced the insane amount of immigration that the UK has.  I do not know of 1 single person who has left the uk under FOM to live in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, etc.

Fom is the problem which the labour govt signed up to.  

No migrant should get any benefits at all until they have paid tax in the uk for 5 years

On 03/11/2018 at 15:05, maverick73 said:

Unfortunately, we're living in a supply and demand crux. Being within the freedom of movement, has driven up demand for accommodation, as many with prefer a UK life, over the other 27 member countries.

Very true

 

I was living in a B&B when I was 21 but then I got pregnant and had to leave.

So she lives in a b@B and gets pregnant then moans she has no money and expects to be housed by the state.  Yea ok then - ever heard of contraception? 

[iamnumerate]

19 hours ago, ebull said:

The reasoning is incorrect IMO.

The cause is that benefits paid high rents for all newcomers using FOM regardless of their UK-tax-or-NI-payment-history.

Freedom of movement alone exists in many other attractive EU countries where the same effect has not been seen.

Our past governments [Blair-Brown-Cameron] should be blamed not FOM. The current gov has not yet fixed the problem either.

Simply require a few years tax residency before benefits can be claimed and a lot of housing problems will be fixed almost overnight. This is what all our EU neighbours did and do.

It is the benefit system.  I know someone who I personally like who came here from another EU country, benefits pay his rent.  Although I l like I fail to see why paying people with low skills to come here is good for us.

[Riedquat]

19 hours ago, ebull said:

The reasoning is incorrect IMO.

The cause is that benefits paid high rents for all newcomers using FOM regardless of their UK-tax-or-NI-payment-history.

Freedom of movement alone exists in many other attractive EU countries where the same effect has not been seen.

Our past governments [Blair-Brown-Cameron] should be blamed not FOM. The current gov has not yet fixed the problem either.

Simply require a few years tax residency before benefits can be claimed and a lot of housing problems will be fixed almost overnight. This is what all our EU neighbours did and do.

Lots of movement rather than freedom of movement - actively encouraging rapid population growth because it staves off issues in the short term is one of the most irresponsible things governments have done, and life in the UK is paying a massive price for it. That said I don't really believe it's the major demand driver for stupid house prices, the old story of loose lending being the biggest contributor.

[Riedquat]

19 hours ago, GregBowman said:

4. We have a capitalist system that favours rentiers and encourages volume low skilled labour rather than vocational training or paying skilled workers

Do we? There are still low skilled jobs but a huge number of them have been outsourced abroad.

[Harry Sacks]

1 hour ago, happyguy said:

 

I was living in a B&B when I was 21 but then I got pregnant and had to leave.

So she lives in a b@B and gets pregnant then moans she has no money and expects to be housed by the state.  Yea ok then - ever heard of contraception? 

So they were making junk bonds from bad mortgages, paying themselves millions in bonuses and laundering money. Then it went tits up and they expected the state to bail them out for best part of a trillion quid!? Yeah ok then, ever heard of looting on an industrial scale?

[scottbeard]

7 minutes ago, dom said:

So they were making junk bonds from bad mortgages, paying themselves millions in bonuses and laundering money. Then it went tits up and they expected the state to bail them out for best part of a trillion quid!? Yeah ok then, ever heard of looting on an industrial scale?

One of the big misconceptions is that it was BANKERS bailed out in 2008.  It was BANKS.  If they hadn't been bailed out, ordinary people would have lost all of their savings in the bankruptcy of RBS, whilst meanwhile the bankers would have been unemployed for a fortnight and then got a new job at "RBS v2" which was formed the following week.

Blame the bankers by all means, but don't blame the bailouts.

[Harry Sacks]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

One of the big misconceptions is that it was BANKERS bailed out in 2008.  It was BANKS.  If they hadn't been bailed out, ordinary people would have lost all of their savings in the bankruptcy of RBS, whilst meanwhile the bankers would have been unemployed for a fortnight and then got a new job at "RBS v2" which was formed the following week.

Blame the bankers by all means, but don't blame the bailouts.

One of the big misconceptions is that BANKS can function or even exist without BANKERS. And the savers couldn't have been bailed out using new deposits in a national bank?

[scottbeard]

4 minutes ago, dom said:

One of the big misconceptions is that BANKS can function or even exist without BANKERS. And the savers couldn't have been bailed out using new deposits in a national bank?

Doesn't that just amount to exactly the same thing?

Pumping State-printed money into RBS or letting RBS go bust and pumping State-printed money into RBS v2 seem to achieve a similar effect, except that in the v2 scenario there's a huge amount of wasted time and disruption whilst thousands of payments bounce and everyone has to wait for new accounts to set up with new account numbers in v2.

To me, the only alternatives were:
- let RBS go bust, and accept that virtually everyone in the country will lose money, and lose faith in the banking system
- bail it out, and accept that the cost of doing so is a monumental amount of money, and that it proves banks are "too big to fail"

Once that hole was dug there was no easy way out.  The way they chose was probably the best of the two bad options.

[Harry Sacks]

2 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Doesn't that just amount to exactly the same thing?

Pumping State-printed money into RBS or letting RBS go bust and pumping State-printed money into RBS v2 seem to achieve a similar effect, except that in the v2 scenario there's a huge amount of wasted time and disruption whilst thousands of payments bounce and everyone has to wait for new accounts to set up with new account numbers in v2.

To me, the only alternatives were:
- let RBS go bust, and accept that virtually everyone in the country will lose money, and lose faith in the banking system
- bail it out, and accept that the cost of doing so is a monumental amount of money, and that it proves banks are "too big to fail"

Once that hole was dug there was no easy way out.  The way they chose was probably the best of the two bad options.

Well if you believe the recent survey that concluded 9 out of 10n MPs don't understand monetary theory correctly, the decision was probably made for them by the finance industry. The banks run the show, they are our new feudal lords, and our political system isn't fit for purpose.

[onlooker]

11 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Doesn't that just amount to exactly the same thing?

Pumping State-printed money into RBS or letting RBS go bust and pumping State-printed money into RBS v2 seem to achieve a similar effect, except that in the v2 scenario there's a huge amount of wasted time and disruption whilst thousands of payments bounce and everyone has to wait for new accounts to set up with new account numbers in v2.

To me, the only alternatives were:
- let RBS go bust, and accept that virtually everyone in the country will lose money, and lose faith in the banking system
- bail it out, and accept that the cost of doing so is a monumental amount of money, and that it proves banks are "too big to fail"

Once that hole was dug there was no easy way out.  The way they chose was probably the best of the two bad options.

I agree, with the added comment that given the new relationship between Govt and banks, it allows Govt to raise money in future just by threatening the banks with fines for some misdemeaner or other. The banks will in future become just a tax raising arm of the Govt. The prid pro quo of that, is that the Govt will ensure they don't go bust in the future, but they will not be allowed to make massive profits again either.

Edited November 5, 2018 by onlooker

[Harry Sacks]

2 hours ago, onlooker said:

 

 

I agree, with the added comment that given the new relationship between Govt and banks, it allows Govt to raise money in future just by threatening the banks with fines for some misdemeaner or other. The banks will in future become just a tax raising arm of the Govt. The prid pro quo of that, is that the Govt will ensure they don't go bust in the future, but they will not be allowed to make massive profits again either.

The tax is therefore a percentage of someone's debt, the balance sheet must grow, and this time they will be too big to bail. And who's interested in profits these days? It's all about bonuses and share buy backs.

[simvastatin]

2 hours ago, dom said:

Well if you believe the recent survey that concluded 9 out of 10n MPs don't understand monetary theory correctly, the decision was probably made for them by the finance industry. The banks run the show, they are our new feudal lords, and our political system isn't fit for purpose.

Grant Shapps is much worse at arithmetic than Diane Abbott but for PC reasons no one mentions it

[BorrowToLeech]

On 03/11/2018 at 15:00, Pebbles said:

Indeed this argument about rents can't increase quicker than wages is largely rubbish.

It’s a simplification, but ‘largely rubbish’ is completely at odds with the evidence.  There is a strong relationship between rents and wages.

The correct statement is that rents change when demand changes.

Wages are a dominant factor in that demand and so, empirically, rents move in line with wages.  

 It doesn't mean rents can’t increase faster than wages, because wages aren’t the only factor driving demand. 

An obvious counter example is the increase in rents due to school league table performance. In tourist economies like the Lake District or Cornwall, I’d guess that rents have very little relation to local wages, because the demand is dominated by the demand from tourists.

On 03/11/2018 at 13:53, Wayward said:

This is the problem with the argument that rents are restricted by affordability....afraid not. If competitive bidding intensifies folks will simply pay all they can afford for less.

The mistake you are making is in thinking that this doesn’t happen already.  

Landlords can and will squeeze rents as hard as they can, confident they can’t be undercut, until people can’t or won’t pay more.  

So the only thing that can change rents is people’s ability or willingness to pay more, which is very strongly correlated to their wages.

Edited November 6, 2018 by BorrowToLeech