Millennials own just 3% of all Household Wealth!!!

[kzb]

2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I'd argue that if you've got large population movements then something's already wrong that needs addressing, rather than accommodating it.

I'm saying that is already the situation.

Take a £1.14 million terraced house in Hackney, that same house is £98k in Blackpool.

This lot on here demand that pensioners in the £98k houses pay more tax to help them buy houses for £1.14 million.

[iamnumerate]

43 minutes ago, kzb said:

Even with a steady-state population, if people continue to move to London, they will still need more and more homes in London.

Even now, with our rapidly increasing population, there are areas of the country that are depopulating.

Also look at, e.g, Scotland, the population has hardly increased in decades.  There are whole islands that used to have resident populations but are now abandoned.

I am not sure that is true - I have known people who have lived in London for years without working- we could just reduce housing benefit so they move somewhere cheaper.

[kzb]

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I am not sure that is true - I have known people who have lived in London for years without working- we could just reduce housing benefit so they move somewhere cheaper.

The danger with that is, London becomes "the worktown", where you are expected to go if you want a decent job.

Also it means other areas get the unemployables from London.  No thanks we have enough of our own.

I'm convinced the London prices are being propped up by the benefits system.  I don't understand how families can arrive from the most dirt poor countries in the world and then afford to live in London, whereas our own young people cannot.  This is a mystery beyond my understanding.   

But most people on here seem to disagree.  It is certainly a difficult problem to solve.

[iamnumerate]

16 minutes ago, kzb said:

 

I'm convinced the London prices are being propped up by the benefits system.  I don't understand how families can arrive from the most dirt poor countries in the world and then afford to live in London, whereas our own young people cannot.  This is a mystery beyond my understanding.   

 

The taxpayer pays for it.

 

17 minutes ago, kzb said:

 

Also it means other areas get the unemployables from London.  No thanks we have enough of our own.

 

I think most of them would actually get a job if the choice was leaving London - so don't worry.

[kzb]

13 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

The taxpayer pays for it.

I'm sure there is truth in this, but proving it is a problem.  The housing benefit bill for London is a lot, but is it really enough to support the prices we see?

[skinnylattej]

4 hours ago, Riedquat said:

With a steady state where it is might need to change but the total doesn't. Of course it's not quite that simple (houses can't move with people).

I'd argue that if you've got large population movements then something's already wrong that needs addressing, rather than accommodating it.

I agree, the young people leave Cornwall for London and the SE, but also Leeds and Manchester.

Unless you work for the NHS or Cornwall Council decent jobs are hard to find.  OK there are seasonal minimum wage jobs in farming, food prep and agriculture, but very little else.

Cornwall Council lives in its own little bubble, subsidising who it sees fit, and complaining that it hasn't got any money, while making enormous efforts to stop any industrial development.  Cornwall Council pays for an administrator to help the fishermen fill out their export forms, but this fits  their idea of Cornwall in the 18th century.

[Riedquat]

27 minutes ago, skinnylattej said:

I agree, the young people leave Cornwall for London and the SE, but also Leeds and Manchester.

Unless you work for the NHS or Cornwall Council decent jobs are hard to find.  OK there are seasonal minimum wage jobs in farming, food prep and agriculture, but very little else.

Cornwall Council lives in its own little bubble, subsidising who it sees fit, and complaining that it hasn't got any money, while making enormous efforts to stop any industrial development.  Cornwall Council pays for an administrator to help the fishermen fill out their export forms, but this fits  their idea of Cornwall in the 18th century.

To be fair to them it looks like an impossible situation. But does it have to be a choice between having the sort of appeal that brings the outsiders in and having the industry to actually make it possible to live there? Get both and you've got a great place to be, pick one or the other and you've probably destroyed what's worth having either way.

[skinnylattej]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

To be fair to them it looks like an impossible situation. But does it have to be a choice between having the sort of appeal that brings the outsiders in and having the industry to actually make it possible to live there? Get both and you've got a great place to be, pick one or the other and you've probably destroyed what's worth having either way.

No, it doesn't have to be like this, it is perfectly possible to have some industry and a good environment to live in.  The current policy will end in disaster one way or another.  The demographics will win.  There are villages on the North coast where the average age of the inhabitants is close to 70 years.  The council are flapping about provision of services in a low population density zone.  And who will buy these overpriced cottages?  Not the locals on minimum wage hotel work.

I cite Linz as an example of a prosperous city with a good balance of big industry, small industry and a great environment and a wide range of housing types and tenures.

[Riedquat]

13 minutes ago, skinnylattej said:

No, it doesn't have to be like this, it is perfectly possible to have some industry and a good environment to live in.

I actually agree, but it takes more effort than the easy answers of saying no to the lot of it or letting in the largest and most dominating (but who offer the most money).

[KieranE]

6 hours ago, kzb said:

I'm sure there is truth in this, but proving it is a problem.  The housing benefit bill for London is a lot, but is it really enough to support the prices we see?

Yes, in some cases.

Local Housing Allowance Rate for a two-bed property in this part of Inner West London is £339.45 per week:

https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20072/housing_benefit/1255/local_housing_allowance/2

That's £17,650 per year.

Landlords seem to be willing to accept gross yields as low as 4% at the moment, presumably because interest rates on mortgages are 2-3%. And because savings interest is so low.

4% of £400,000 is £16,000 per year.

So housing benefit does support a price of up to £400,000 for a 2-bed flat.

Which, funnily enough, is what a fairly basic two-bed property in Inner West London will cost.

Not sure the numbers add up so well for a 4-bedroom house mind you.

 

 

[kzb]

1 hour ago, KieranE said:

Yes, in some cases.

Local Housing Allowance Rate for a two-bed property in this part of Inner West London is £339.45 per week:

https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20072/housing_benefit/1255/local_housing_allowance/2

That's £17,650 per year.

Landlords seem to be willing to accept gross yields as low as 4% at the moment, presumably because interest rates on mortgages are 2-3%. And because savings interest is so low.

4% of £400,000 is £16,000 per year.

So housing benefit does support a price of up to £400,000 for a 2-bed flat.

Which, funnily enough, is what a fairly basic two-bed property in Inner West London will cost.

Not sure the numbers add up so well for a 4-bedroom house mind you.

Crikey, I think you are on to something here, well done.

Also, some already-cash-rich landlords will be willing to take much less than 4%, in a market where property only ever increases in value.  That would then support property values higher than £400k.

The next part of the proof is how many are actually claiming this level of housing allowance benefit.

 

 

 

[kzb]

6 hours ago, skinnylattej said:

I agree, the young people leave Cornwall for London and the SE, but also Leeds and Manchester.

Unless you work for the NHS or Cornwall Council decent jobs are hard to find.  OK there are seasonal minimum wage jobs in farming, food prep and agriculture, but very little else.

Cornwall Council lives in its own little bubble, subsidising who it sees fit, and complaining that it hasn't got any money, while making enormous efforts to stop any industrial development.  Cornwall Council pays for an administrator to help the fishermen fill out their export forms, but this fits  their idea of Cornwall in the 18th century.

I recall hearing a few years ago on TV, the question, which is England's poorest county?  The answer was Cornwall, which surprised me.

I bet there is a big boost to the tourism industry in Cornwall this year.  Aside from that however, do we really want more commercial development in one of our more unspoilt rural areas?

There's got to be some compromise between despoiling yet more of the country and providing some better jobs so the young don't automatically run off to the big city and stay there.

[skinnylattej]

6 hours ago, kzb said:

I recall hearing a few years ago on TV, the question, which is England's poorest county?  The answer was Cornwall, which surprised me.

I bet there is a big boost to the tourism industry in Cornwall this year.  Aside from that however, do we really want more commercial development in one of our more unspoilt rural areas?

There's got to be some compromise between despoiling yet more of the country and providing some better jobs so the young don't automatically run off to the big city and stay there.

Yes There will be a boost to tourism, but it's seasonal and very poorly paid.  Already there are signs that Cornwall doesn't want repeat custom, as price increases have been excessive in some areas.

I would like to see more development that provides good jobs for young people.  Otherwise the county will struggle as only the old people and those who can get a job in the public sector  will be left.  When you are twenty, living in a campervan doing some bar work, and spending your days surfing might be fantastic.  Go to Thailand/Bali/Australia for the Winter.  Not so much fun when you are 35, living in rented accommodation on minimum wage and trying to bring up a family.

Cornwall has the highest percentage of brownfield sites in England, as a result of tin mining and clay mining.  Thanks to EU funding it also has  good connectivity for a rural area.  But any hint of industrial development is blocked.

 

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, skinnylattej said:

Cornwall has the highest percentage of brownfield sites in England, as a result of tin mining and clay mining.  Thanks to EU funding it also has  good connectivity for a rural area.  But any hint of industrial development is blocked.

Thought there was still clay mining going on, but that of course doesn't mean there aren't lots of disused. If it is still going what are the tonnages? It illustrates a bit of a problem with industry and jobs - even where such things still continue they no longer support many jobs (and arguably don't add much to the local economy) even if the scale is as big or bigger than ever. It's similar near me with quarrying (I'm not too far from the Peak District quarries). They're huge, and large trainloads of stone are leaving all the time, but not many people work in them compared to when they produced considerably less.

[kzb]

3 hours ago, skinnylattej said:

When you are twenty, living in a campervan doing some bar work, and spending your days surfing might be fantastic.  Go to Thailand/Bali/Australia for the Winter.  Not so much fun when you are 35, living in rented accommodation on minimum wage and trying to bring up a family.

Absolutely, but also bear in mind living in the middle of a large city with a family is not great either.   Young people moving to the city are basically after the perceived sexual opportunities.  When you are "married with children", that attraction no longer applies.   You want a quiet, low-crime area then.

[nickb1]

On 10/05/2021 at 17:14, kzb said:

Interesting point, but it still means someone is buying all these overpriced properties.  I cannot believe there are thousands of people earning enough to buy a terraced house in Hackney for £1.14 million.

I thought the volume of trades was low, so nobody is "buying them all". But also consider ... if you are trading up and your existing studio flat has ballooned in price ... Or if you are an BTL 'investor' with accumulated wealth leached off the properly working population for decades ... Back in 17th century Netherlands somebody was buying "all those tulips" at inflated prices, until they weren't.

[nickb1]

On 10/05/2021 at 12:57, Riedquat said:

Yes, hence it's a necessary evil that'll further destroy or at least damage the already damaged. It is necessary if there isn't currently enough housing for the population but certain people seem very determined to convince themselves that there's no downside,

get with the agenda, it's all part of the "hostile environment" innit? We have to make the UK such a sh*thole nobody in their right mind wants to come in. 

[Sprite]

18 hours ago, kzb said:

I'm convinced the London prices are being propped up by the benefits system.  I don't understand how families can arrive from the most dirt poor countries in the world and then afford to live in London, whereas our own young people cannot.  This is a mystery beyond my understanding.   

But most people on here seem to disagree.  It is certainly a difficult problem to solve.

Most LLs in London won't take the risk of putting a benefit tenant in over a professional tenant and in London there is no shortage of demand from professional tenants. 

From anecdotal personal experience, I have lived with foreign nationals and I have seen young families (of 3) and couples sharing a room in a house share in London so newcomers from abroad don't have it easy either (but better than where they came from). 

London prices are being propped up by foreign buyers (from Russia, China, Middle East etc) who are hoovering up properties in Zone 1 which is causing a knock-on effect to the outer zones. If foreign ownership was banned in the UK, you would see huge falls in prices in London especially the premium-prices properties which would eventually have a knock on effect to Greater London. 

[kzb]

41 minutes ago, nickb1 said:

I thought the volume of trades was low, so nobody is "buying them all". But also consider ... if you are trading up and your existing studio flat has ballooned in price ... Or if you are an BTL 'investor' with accumulated wealth leached off the properly working population for decades ... Back in 17th century Netherlands somebody was buying "all those tulips" at inflated prices, until they weren't.

But they could afford to buy the tulips.

It's another planet to me.  How have we allowed such income disparity to come about in this country?

[nickb1]

1 minute ago, kzb said:

But they could afford to buy the tulips.

the few people who were buying them, yes, or they had credit ...

[Riedquat]

Just now, kzb said:

It's another planet to me.  How have we allowed such income disparity to come about in this country?

Various reasons, but I think the main ones are seeing any wealth gain as a success that needs to be supported, even if it's only obtained by wealth transfer rather than adding anything, and by increasingly viewing people as an economic nuisance - removing jobs is celebrated as progress and there's more enthusiasm for that than creating them.

[zugzwang]

12 minutes ago, kzb said:

But they could afford to buy the tulips.

It's another planet to me.  How have we allowed such income disparity to come about in this country?

Forty years of neoliberal economics.

[nickb1]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

How have we allowed such income disparity to come about in this country?

40+ years of uninterrupted neoliberal economic and social policies, totally corrupt corporate media and political class? Oh @zugzwang beat me to it...

Edited May 12, 2021 by nickb1

[winkie]

2 hours ago, nickb1 said:

I thought the volume of trades was low, so nobody is "buying them all". But also consider ... if you are trading up and your existing studio flat has ballooned in price ... Or if you are an BTL 'investor' with accumulated wealth leached off the properly working population for decades ... Back in 17th century Netherlands somebody was buying "all those tulips" at inflated prices, until they weren't.

Only the brave will change, only those that can see past the end of their nose can see change is coming.

1 hour ago, nickb1 said:

get with the agenda, it's all part of the "hostile environment" innit? We have to make the UK such a sh*thole nobody in their right mind wants to come in. 

The UK is not a sh*thole but only for selected people. 

[skinnylattej]

6 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Thought there was still clay mining going on, but that of course doesn't mean there aren't lots of disused. If it is still going what are the tonnages? It illustrates a bit of a problem with industry and jobs - even where such things still continue they no longer support many jobs (and arguably don't add much to the local economy) even if the scale is as big or bigger than ever. It's similar near me with quarrying (I'm not too far from the Peak District quarries). They're huge, and large trainloads of stone are leaving all the time, but not many people work in them compared to when they produced considerably less.

China clay is still mined in central Cornwall.  Tonnage in 2019 was around 600,000, compared with 3,000,000 in 1986.

Workforce is about 450 compared with 8,000 at its peak.  China clay for the paper industry is very small, mainly for ceramics, UK for sanitary ware, and export to Far East for fine china and porcelain.

In central Cornwall the great white hope is lithium.  Lithium rich micas are found near St Dennis.

China clay is also used in paint, so expect a big boost next year as demand for whitewash booms - Covid 19 pandemic enquiry featuring the not-me Gov.