Immigration Street

[TheKnightWho]

You are being far too simplistic here.

What drives house prices up is a mismatch between supply and demand.

Demand is driven by changes in population levels (caused not only by immigration but also by emigration, births and deaths), and also very significantly by people wanting to live in smaller households, and buy-to-let landlords using houses as investments. In a few parts of the country - notably central London, you also need to factor in people buying houses as investments without any intention to have anyone living in them.

Supply is restricted by shortage of housebuilding skills (which immigration is to some extent helping to alleviate), planning policies, and - so far as I can tell - also by hoarding of land by commercial organizations hoping to make a profit, and (apparently, politically motivated) restrictions by the Government on the ability of local authorities to finance housebuilding.

There are lots of factors in there, and picking out just one of them (eg. immigration) and making out that is exclusively the reason for house price increases is very misleading. It's arguable that if successive Governments had properly planned to build sufficient houses and/or to take measures to free up supply-side restrictions, then house prices would not have risen, even with current levels of immigration.

The situation on wages is also far more complex than you've made out, but I see lots of other people have pointed that out in more detail, so I won't bother

Don't let the facts get in the way of easy UKIP-esque solutions

 

[Oswyntail]

....
Much of that is in nursing, and it really depends what you want from your nurses.....

But we do have a chicken/egg situation. You may see it differently, but I believe that the greater responsibilities now held by nurses came about because the graduate entries demanded them, and because, as you say,they were cheaper than doctors. The "requirement" for graduate entry level came before these responsibilities were widespread. I would never suggest that critical roles should not have competently trained people running them. I would suggest that the insistence on degrees had one effect of inflating costs and another of having to reinvent traditional entry-level nursing.

 

[radamfi]

A large reason for high UK house prices is the culture of buying the most expensive property you can get. That is not really the case in countries where there is a cultural aversion to debt, such as Germany. The UK also has limited regulation of renting compared to other European countries, making renting unattractive and further entrenching the view that home ownership has to be achieved at all costs.

I get paid by the hour and work when I want. Also, I can be fired at any time with no notice. I don't get paid when I don't work or when I am sick. I wouldn't have it any other way. If such arrangements were banned, I would be unlikely to make as much per hour.

 

[Clip]

So was the latest series of Downton Abbey, and I don't see people living in manor houses and wearing Edwardian clothing. It is something known as fiction, where the things represented on screen are not actually taking place for real as they are filmed.

In the case of Call the Midwife, it is set in an era where nurses are not as independent as they are nowadays. Thus their representation on screen reflects that.

wow really? I never knew.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A large reason for high UK house prices is the culture of buying the most expensive property you can get. That is not really the case in countries where there is a cultural aversion to debt, such as Germany. The UK also has limited regulation of renting compared to other European countries, making renting unattractive and further entrenching the view that home ownership has to be achieved at all costs.

If people are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on property, they're going to go for the nicest house or area that is within their budget. That's not a UK thing, it's the same in France or Germany. The wealthy live in nice areas, the middle classes live in middle areas (but aspire upwards) and the poor live in poor areas (but also aspire upwards).

The problem is the lack of security in renting. I've just been given notice to quit my flat because the landlord wants to put a family member in it instead, apparently. This means I'm going to have to drop around £1000 in moving costs and parasite estate agent fees, before I get the deposit back (assuming the estate agent is honest and gives me all my deposit back). I've been in the flat a year and would quite like to stay.

All that is entirely above board and legal, but it is extremely insecure. I wouldn't want to attempt to raise a family in private rented accommodation in the UK, knowing that the landlord can boot you out with two months notice. It's a huge inconvenient expense and it's just my partner and me; trying to do it with a baby as well would be extraordinarily difficult.

If tenancy agreements meant I was safe in my home so long as I paid the rent, and that rents could only go up by certain amounts, then I'd rent and raise a family renting. As I have no security renting, I don't want to start a family until I have security. Security in the UK means buying something.

I get paid by the hour and work when I want. Also, I can be fired at any time with no notice. I don't get paid when I don't work or when I am sick. I wouldn't have it any other way. If such arrangements were banned, I would be unlikely to make as much per hour.

I don't think you should be comparing contracting with zero-hours contracts, because they are not the same thing at all. Contractors are brought in for specific projects at specific times, and the contractor understands this. There is an equality of power, for one thing.

Zero-hours contracts are for the routine operation of the business, and are purely designed to make employees frightened and acquiescent. There's the added bonus that the financial risk of staffing is transferred from the employer to the employee; zero-hours employees are routinely over-recruited and sent home if everyone turns up. If an employee on zero-hours kicks up a fuss then, chances are, they effectively won't have a job on Monday morning. It's disgraceful.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't think you should be comparing contracting with zero-hours contracts, because they are not the same thing at all. Contractors are brought in for specific projects at specific times, and the contractor understands this. There is an equality of power, for one thing.

Zero-hours contracts are for the routine operation of the business, and are purely designed to make employees frightened and acquiescent. There's the added bonus that the financial risk of staffing is transferred from the employer to the employee; zero-hours employees are routinely over-recruited and sent home if everyone turns up. If an employee on zero-hours kicks up a fuss then, chances are, they effectively won't have a job on Monday morning. It's disgraceful.

And of course the main difference between contracting and zero hours contracts is money!
As radamfi points out, contracting in general will allow you to earn more than working as a normal employee. Zero hour contracts generally do not pay more than if the person was working as a normal employee (if anything they will usually pay less).

 

[radamfi]

If people are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on property, they're going to go for the nicest house or area that is within their budget. That's not a UK thing, it's the same in France or Germany. The wealthy live in nice areas, the middle classes live in middle areas (but aspire upwards) and the poor live in poor areas (but also aspire upwards).

But what people perceive as their 'budget' is different in the UK, because of the debt culture and the way that people in the UK live beyond their means. When we bought our flat, we could have bought a 3 bedroom house, but we only needed a flat so bought a flat as it gave us a safety net in case money got tight. We still live in that small flat and have paid off the mortgage, but if we were a typical British couple, buying the most expensive house we can 'afford', we would now be in a £600K heavily mortgaged detached house.

I don't think you should be comparing contracting with zero-hours contracts, because they are not the same thing at all. Contractors are brought in for specific projects at specific times, and the contractor understands this. There is an equality of power, for one thing.

I used to believe that, but over the years I've seen many people switch from permanent to contracting/freelance and more or less do the same job. Permanent work does not necessarily ensure security. You might as well be paid a higher hourly rate in return for surrendering your employment rights.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I used to believe that, but over the years I've seen many people switch from permanent to contracting/freelance and more or less do the same job. Permanent work does not necessarily ensure security. You might as well be paid a higher hourly rate in return for surrendering your employment rights.

But zero hours contracts are fundamentally different to contracting / freelance.

 

[radamfi]

Companies employing people on zero hours contracts still suffer some of the same overheads as when employing normal permanent staff. I could do what I'm doing on a zero hours contract but I would be paid less.

I can see why they appeal to some employees though. I know some semi-retired senior staff who changed to zero-hours contracts instead of freelance as they still wanted to be considered employees of the organisation and continue to accrue years of service.

 

[Yew]

Companies employing people on zero hours contracts still suffer some of the same overheads as when employing normal permanent staff. I could do what I'm doing on a zero hours contract but I would be paid less.

I can see why they appeal to some employees though. I know some semi-retired senior staff who changed to zero-hours contracts instead of freelance as they still wanted to be considered employees of the organisation and continue to accrue years of service.

Indeed, although Zero Hours suits some people, it is the vast minority of people actually on them whom it suits.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I used to believe that, but over the years I've seen many people switch from permanent to contracting/freelance and more or less do the same job.

Contractoring and zero-hours employment are different things.

To be treated as a contractor you need to be hired for a specific issue and for a specific period of time, and you need to demonstrate that you are self-employed (i.e. you control where and when you work). If an contracting company doesn't do that then HMRC are highly likely to start sniffing around and investigating whether national insurance is being evaded.

Zero-hours contracts are about treating staff as employees, but transferring the financial risk of a bad day to them. Zero-hours contracts are rife in retailing and food because they allow employers to send people home if it is quiet, without having to pay them. For some staff, e.g. students, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but generally it is.

 

[radamfi]

To be treated as a contractor you need to be hired for a specific issue and for a specific period of time, and you need to demonstrate that you are self-employed (i.e. you control where and when you work). If an contracting company doesn't do that then HMRC are highly likely to start sniffing around and investigating whether national insurance is being evaded.

You don't necessarily have to be self-employed to enjoy the benefits of freelancing. You can work through an umbrella company. If you do that, you earn the same as a self-employed contractor, but you pay the usual National Insurance and Income Tax as a regular employee. If you don't earn that much or have a lot of time off during the year, it is a reasonable alternative to 'proper' contracting and you can be sure that you won't be investigated for tax evasion.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I said the contracting company would be investigated for avoiding employer NICs, not the contractor.