Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

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


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

If they can find somewhere where no-one objects to the housing then fine. Good luck finding that place.

The reality is of course that the further something is from someone the less they're likely to care as much about it, so could well be aware of the damage it'll cause nearby but less further afield, and most people are pretty poor at empathy. There are also those who live in places where there isn't really any space for housing nearby and are used to that sort of environment and are thus unable to even grasp the concept of really caring about turning somewhere else into something similar - the "doesn't bother me so shouldn't bother anyone else and I'll just call them idiots or NIMBYs or whatever" type people.

I think it is legitimate for a person to not want housing near them - if they don't want the Government to increase the population (like you).

However if they want the population to increase they should be prepared to suffer like everyone else.

Personally I would use the benefit system to reduce housing demand - but that is another issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 424
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

No I know people who want more immigration and more housing - but not near them.

How old are they?  Are they landlords?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I think it is legitimate for a person to not want housing near them - if they don't want the Government to increase the population (like you).

However if they want the population to increase they should be prepared to suffer like everyone else.

Personally I would use the benefit system to reduce housing demand - but that is another issue.

How about the ones who live in the middle of large cities where there's no space for housing and are quite happy for the population to increase and houses to be built somewhere else - doesn't affect them and they're happy enough in the middle of a city so tough luck to anyone else who's bothered? "I don't mind it and don't give a crap about anyone who does" is a pretty common attitude (if I'm honest with myself I feel that way on some issues).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

How about the ones who live in the middle of large cities where there's no space for housing and are quite happy for the population to increase and houses to be built somewhere else - doesn't affect them and they're happy enough in the middle of a city so tough luck to anyone else who's bothered? "I don't mind it and don't give a crap about anyone who does" is a pretty common attitude (if I'm honest with myself I feel that way on some issues).

when you buy a house you don't own the view.
Unless you own the view you dont really have any rights over it.

We have national parks as protected areas for people to visit and enjoy nature, everything else should be fair game. If you live somewhere pretty think yourself lucky that you have the view and the surroundings as a 'free benefit' for as long as you did. 

Although i really really do feel currently building standards are gash, and not fit for purpose. I think sensible building with attractive quality houses expanding current cities and towns and villages makes sense, which is half of what the current plan is.

Mass crowded new builds are horrible slums of the future. Quality environments are better. And perhaps immigration should be based on capacity of current housing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, jiltedjen said:

when you buy a house you don't own the view.
Unless you own the view you dont really have any rights over it.

So what?

Quote

We have national parks as protected areas for people to visit and enjoy nature, everything else should be fair game. If you live somewhere pretty think yourself lucky that you have the view and the surroundings as a 'free benefit' for as long as you did. 

What an unbelievably bleak, uncaring, destructive, attitude that cares nothing for peoples' quality of life and state of mind. The quality of your surroundings can have a massive impact on that, positive or negative; we should do everything in our power to maximise that, not find excuses to make a godawful mess. Any time anything attractive, beautiful, characterful or so on is damaged someone has done something pretty obnoxious. It's necessary sometimes but the default should be to be appalled by it, not to find excuses to rush ahead and dismiss everyone it affects.

Quote

Although i really really do feel currently building standards are gash, and not fit for purpose. I think sensible building with attractive quality houses expanding current cities and towns and villages makes sense, which is half of what the current plan is.

As the least bad, lesser evil choice to deal with the grossly irresponsible population growth we've had, and which needs to go hand in hand with policies to stop it happening in the future.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

What an unbelievably bleak, uncaring, destructive, attitude that cares nothing for peoples' quality of life and state of mind. The quality of your surroundings can have a massive impact on that, positive or negative; we should do everything in our power to maximise that, not find excuses to make a godawful mess. Any time anything attractive, beautiful, characterful or so on is damaged someone has done something pretty obnoxious. It's necessary sometimes but the default should be to be appalled by it, not to find excuses to rush ahead and dismiss everyone it affects.

Well its also how you quantify quality of life, and fairness.

For example many oldies paid nothing for their houses then protest new building as their lose their views and surroundings (a free benefit that others dont enjoy). And young people have to life in much lower quality housing with no view and pay through the nose for it, often the people are directly comparable between generations, so for example a boomer postman and a millenial postman.

There are plenty who enjoy their surroundings at no cost to themselves, but at massive cost to the younger generations. A better allocation of housing is required, everyone should have nice surroundings especially those who work hard for it. 

There needs to be some kind of mechanism to drive oldies (who didnt work for it) out of the nice areas, for example if you want state pension or NHS help you have to be in a reasonable distance from hospitals, not out in the stinks in posh villages, and if you are you should have to contribute to costs.

Being against building is a very selfish attitude, and it comes from people who have something nice that they didnt work for, and most cases dont deserve, they are very very against building as they are getting a huge free benefit at the huge expense and determent of others.   

But slowly as time moves on the convocation is turning from 'no builder what so ever' to local plans. 

Its much better to accept that building should and needs to happen and instead that building being of better quality and better planned out. 

Look at it this way, you can live in a country where nothing is built as you keep your view, but eventually this will tear the moral fabric of the country apart, as the young keep getting crushed in worse and worse conditions. Building is the lesser of the two evils.

Or eventually the view will still be there, but the oldies wont be, forced to live in the slums instead while the millennials take control of the vote.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jiltedjen said:

We have national parks as protected areas for people to visit and enjoy nature, everything else should be fair game.

I'm in favour of building but also happy that a lot of the genuinely beautiful and ecologically important land is already protected by national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest etc. The protections are there for the best stuff already, we shouldn't pretend that some herbicide- and insecticide-soaked field with less biodiversity than the average suburban garden is either beautiful or ecologically valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

What an unbelievably bleak, uncaring, destructive, attitude that cares nothing for peoples' quality of life and state of mind.

Telling people that they can't have a decent home to live in is also "an unbelievably bleak, uncaring, destructive attitude".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Telling people that they can't have a decent home to live in is also "an unbelievably bleak, uncaring, destructive attitude".

See parts about necessary evil and the grim necessity of having to catch up but it also having to go hand in hand with stopping that ongoing increase. Otherwise you are happily condemning future generations to a worse life than at present whilst claiming to be concerned about people.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

I'm in favour of building but also happy that a lot of the genuinely beautiful and ecologically important land is already protected by national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest etc. The protections are there for the best stuff already, we shouldn't pretend that some herbicide- and insecticide-soaked field with less biodiversity than the average suburban garden is either beautiful or ecologically valuable.

Ah great, it's promote the race to the bottom then! Just leave a few national parks and do our best to make sure attractive isn't the norm for daily lives, just something you go and visit every now and then. Just keep finding excuses to promote that unforgivable decline, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

See parts about necessary evil.

Doesn’t need to be necessary but does need to be fair.

but I suspect the horrors of fair generational housing would be far worse for boomers than losing their view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jiltedjen said:

Doesn’t need to be necessary but does need to be fair.

but I suspect the horrors of fair generational housing would be far worse for boomers than losing their view. 

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, that they won't be causing any damage or hurting anything or anyone that matters. The grim reality is that there's no way forward that isn't negative and the best we can do is try to minimise the negative. But it's much easier to latch on to one aspect of interest, regard changing that as positive, and ignore any downsides it produces (usually by attacking anyone with the gall to be upset by them - then you can also persuade yourself that they're people it doesn't matter if you upset).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

See parts about necessary evil and the grim necessity of having to catch up but it also having to go hand in hand with stopping that ongoing increase. Otherwise you are happily condemning future generations to a worse life than at present whilst claiming to be concerned about people.

Making sure there is enough housing for those future generations to live in is condemning them to live a worse life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dorkins said:

Making sure there is enough housing for those future generations to live in is condemning them to live a worse life?

Sure, the quality of our surroundings (in terms of physical appeal) is diminishing, and the aesthetic quality of our surroundings is a very important and sadly overlooked aspect of quality of life. And the impact on that is more subtle than just what you can see out of your window. So more development will degrade it over we've got now. Yes, future generations need a place to live so there's no choice but don't pretend that there's no downside, that it won't be a downside to being one of those future generations. The best we can hope for is to try to minimise that impact. They may have a house but more won't be as fortunate as people with houses often are today. This is why population growth is so damaging.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Sure, the quality of our surroundings (in terms of physical appeal) is diminishing, and the aesthetic quality of our surroundings is a very important and sadly overlooked aspect of quality of life. And the impact on that is more subtle than just what you can see out of your window. So more development will degrade it over we've got now. Yes, future generations need a place to live so there's no choice but don't pretend that there's no downside, that it won't be a downside to being one of those future generations. The best we can hope for is to try to minimise that impact. They may have a house but more won't be as fortunate as people with houses often are today. This is why population growth is so damaging.

Personally I think a well-designed street (attractive architecture, street trees, parks+cafes etc) can have a lot more aesthetic quality than a chemical-soaked monoculture field or that low quality scrubland you get at the edge of many cities. Plus as I said, you get more biodiversity (flowering plants, birds, insects) in urban gardens than in areas where the ecology has been destroyed by industrialised agriculture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

 you get more biodiversity (flowering plants, birds, insects) in urban gardens than in areas where the ecology has been destroyed by industrialised agriculture.

That is probably true - although sadly more and more people are putting plastic grass and concrete in their gardens- very sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Personally I think a well-designed street (attractive architecture, street trees, parks+cafes etc) can have a lot more aesthetic quality than a chemical-soaked monoculture field or that low quality scrubland you get at the edge of many cities. Plus as I said, you get more biodiversity (flowering plants, birds, insects) in urban gardens than in areas where the ecology has been destroyed by industrialised agriculture.

It's very true that that can make a positive contribution; ideally we should be aiming for it in all areas and doing it well, as you describe, should be a must. But it's not just about immediate location. Some people don't appear to grasp it but the wider levels of development in England in particular also have their own impact. Some people like busy areas, others like a generally quieter level that's actually very hard to find in England, where the feeling through most of it is a big town or city nearby, and living in a place that's attracted a middle aged flab of modern development.

The monoculture industrial agriculture in many places is another necessity of population growth though.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Personally I think a well-designed street (attractive architecture, street trees, parks+cafes etc) can have a lot more aesthetic quality than a chemical-soaked monoculture field or that low quality scrubland you get at the edge of many cities. Plus as I said, you get more biodiversity (flowering plants, birds, insects) in urban gardens than in areas where the ecology has been destroyed by industrialised agriculture.

Wait till all our prime agricultural land is carpeted over with solar panels.

https://sunnica.co.uk/proposals/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/05/2021 at 12:55, zugzwang said:

meet the demand

you will never "meet the demand" of a speculative bubble. Think of a new home as primarily a vehicle for banks to secure an additional mortgage. Could explain a lot. e.g. shoddy building standards, shoddy building regs, demise of town planning so no accompanying infrastructure expansion, no concern about ballooning prices etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, nickb1 said:

you will never "meet the demand" of a speculative bubble. Think of a new home as primarily a vehicle for banks to secure an additional mortgage. Could explain a lot. e.g. shoddy building standards, shoddy building regs, demise of town planning so no accompanying infrastructure expansion, no concern about ballooning prices etc. etc.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Making sure there is enough housing for those future generations to live in is condemning them to live a worse life?

There is of course a third option rather  than either a) more houses or b) not enough housing c) don't pay people to come here and don't make having children a career anymore.

That way in a few years we won't need more and more housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

There is of course a third option rather  than either a) more houses or b) not enough housing c) don't pay people to come here and don't make having children a career anymore.

That way in a few years we won't need more and more housing.

Exactly. It appears though that some people have somehow managed to develop such stunted horizons that they simply can't understand that there's any downside to building more and more and more and more, that the level of development density in the UK is unnoticeable (just hop over to France - when you can - with twice the area and the same population and if you don't notice the difference, well, there's no hope).

Even when I've pointed out that I accept short term more building as a necessary evil, but that it has to go hand in hand to stopping stoking demand (both from population gains and financial pressure) that doesn't seem to be enough for those hell-bent on development. I'm wondering if certain posters own shares in building firms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

That way in a few years we won't need more and more housing.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 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.

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.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • 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.