• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What decisions could the UK actually take to avoid managed decline?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,322
We need to have more housing development, but we need to largely preserve the countryside. The house building needs to mainly be in urban areas.
But there is no room in urban areas for housing construction on the scale that is required.

The number of housing units we are short is comparable to the number of housing units in Greater London, it may even be greater.

Hundreds of square kilometres of countryside will have to be developed to achieve the required level of housing construction, even with very high construction densities.

Demanding densification of existing urban areas won't help because demolition and reconstruction will take many decades and consume labour resources that simply don't exist.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

5th Save energy and costs to the whole UK by insulating (and probably educate people) - not subsidise the waste of expensive energy which does not produce long term results.
Even insulation boosters suggest programmes consuming literally hundreds of thousands of workers for years, to achieve modest reductions in energy consumption.

Without conscription there is no way to source anything like the labour required, and conscription would have massive deleterious impacts on the rest of the economy.

If decarbonisation is achieved, energy will be cheap and have very small or negligible environmental impacts.
Every labourer you send to insulate houses is one that cannot be working on a production line for energy production equipment.

I definitely think there needs to be a degree of coordination (at national, regional and local-levels) for this. Councils should be producing more frequent local plans to include infrastructure upgrades as part of new developments. Then so long as new housing is compliant with that local plan it will do the things you say. It's a weird balance - we need to reduce a lot of a the regulatory burden on housebuilding (to bring new providers into the market) while also making sure what is built is high quality housing that supports local infrastructure. Also a chance to think creatively - our local GP surgeries are full, so could you use a housing project to double the size of the surgery and fund that expansion by putting flats above?

Local government will never approve, or in any way enable, large scale housing construction - it is electoral suicide.
Localism is just another NIMBY tool to prevent anything being done.

The only way to practical get the housing we need in a reasonable timescale is to go full blown Milton Keynes/Brasilia.
Very large numbers of units will have to be laid out rapidly and in a manner that bests leverages available industrial capability.

People will recoil from the supposed un front cost from that, but fixing the insanity of the housing system will be worth hundreds of billions of pounds every year.
Tweaking individual housing estates to fit in a tiny number of new houses is not going to get anywhere.

We are short 10-15% of the entire housing stock!
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,402
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Edit: As a 4th - investing in our people. The unaffordablility of childcare is a massive driver behind economic inactivity.

I have an issue with that. Kids should be brought up in their early years by their own parents. I would rather fund their ability to do that (as existed in the 80s) than institutional childcare.

Note: parents. Can be mother or father or a mixture.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,141
Location
Elginshire
Well whatever your views of Renaults and Fiats, they are popular and purchased.

I buy British where possible, but give up where not (for example a visit to Sainsburys for a toilet brush where every one was made in China.
You only have to watch an episode of Dragons' Den to see how much it's frowned upon if you don't outsource your manufacturing to a country where production is much cheaper. Venture Vulture Capitalists want the maximum return for their money in the shortest period of time and to hell with the environmental and social consequences.

At the same time, do we really want British workers making plastic toilet brushes when this is the sort of thing that machines are far better at? By all means, have British workers designing the toilet brushes but, as far as making the end product is concerned, this is what automation is for. I'd rather not see foreign workers having to churn these things out either when they could be putting their skills to better use.

We need to have more housing development, but we need to largely preserve the countryside. The house building needs to mainly be in urban areas.
To an extent "preserving the countryside" is only something that affluent people escaping the rat-race really care about. I live in a small former fishing village where there is some development going on. Am I happy about it? No, not really. I may be about to lose part of my sea view.

Having said that, there is significant demand among the younger population for housing in the area that they grew up in. It's not a case of having to move away for jobs; many are apprentices in local firms and have no need to migrate elsewhere. Once they serve their time, they either progress within the companies they're working for, or start out on their own.

Development has to happen in rural areas too, otherwise there's nothing to keep people in the communities where they grew up. If nothing evolves in smaller places, you end up with villages that are full of second homes that are only occupied for part of the year. People who grew up there are forced to move further away from where their parents live and this brings with it a whole raft of problems. One thing this place does have going for it is the fact that elderly people are looked after in their own homes by relatives who pop in a couple of times a day. This is proper social care and it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,682
Location
Scotland
I have an issue with that. Kids should be brought up in their early years by their own parents. I would rather fund their ability to do that (as existed in the 80s) than institutional childcare.
But in many cases the childcare that's needed might only cover a few hours in the morning and/or evening to allow one of those parents to work.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,356
Location
Yorks
You only have to watch an episode of Dragons' Den to see how much it's frowned upon if you don't outsource your manufacturing to a country where production is much cheaper. Venture Vulture Capitalists want the maximum return for their money in the shortest period of time and to hell with the environmental and social consequences.

At the same time, do we really want British workers making plastic toilet brushes when this is the sort of thing that machines are far better at? By all means, have British workers designing the toilet brushes but, as far as making the end product is concerned, this is what automation is for. I'd rather not see foreign workers having to churn these things out either when they could be putting their skills to better use.


To an extent "preserving the countryside" is only something that affluent people escaping the rat-race really care about. I live in a small former fishing village where there is some development going on. Am I happy about it? No, not really. I may be about to lose part of my sea view.

Having said that, there is significant demand among the younger population for housing in the area that they grew up in. It's not a case of having to move away for jobs; many are apprentices in local firms and have no need to migrate elsewhere. Once they serve their time, they either progress within the companies they're working for, or start out on their own.

Development has to happen in rural areas too, otherwise there's nothing to keep people in the communities where they grew up. If nothing evolves in smaller places, you end up with villages that are full of second homes that are only occupied for part of the year. People who grew up there are forced to move further away from where their parents live and this brings with it a whole raft of problems. One thing this place does have going for it is the fact that elderly people are looked after in their own homes by relatives who pop in a couple of times a day. This is proper social care and it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny!

We don't want the countryside being concreted over. However, "urban" doesn't necessarily mean the big city. There are plenty of small towns scattered about the place that will have brownfield land where housing can be expanded.
 

Broucek

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2020
Messages
939
Location
UK
I agree with all the arguments for better quality new build housing including associated infrastructure. But it's hard to see how that will make houses more affordable.....

And, yes, the "affordable" housing often delivers no profit to the developer who makes its margin on the other homes built
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
I agree with all the arguments for better quality new build housing including associated infrastructure. But it's hard to see how that will make houses more affordable.....

Laws of supply and demand. If you increase the supply of something while demand remains constant, then the price invariably falls.

(There are a few qualifiers: There needs to be genuine competition. And you would need to build a lot of houses to make a significant difference - but then we need a lot of houses anyway. You'd need to take care to ensure the houses are being built in the places people want to live in. In popular areas like Cornwall, you'd want to make sure they don't get snapped up by people looking for 2nd homes. And 'better quality' needs to be qualified by that they must be buildable cheaply enough that they can be sold at an affordable price while the builder still makes a profit. But as long as you can address those potential issues, building enough houses is the best way - indeed, it's the only way in the long run, that you are going to be able to make houses more affordable)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,402
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But in many cases the childcare that's needed might only cover a few hours in the morning and/or evening to allow one of those parents to work.

And in those small amounts of an hour or two a day it's more affordable, though I can see a case for re-evaluating the school day* to allow parents to return to work properly once they are school age. The cost becomes swingeing when it's all day, but to me if you value your career over your children to that extent you shouldn't have children. Children are supposed to be your everything, and in early years I just can't get the idea of just palming them off so you can go back to the City.

* Things like breakfast clubs, homework clubs and the likes to extend the school day so parents have time to do a full time job and get to/from school.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,682
Location
Scotland
And in those small amounts of an hour or two a day it's more affordable
More affordable doesn't mean cheap. I know someone who wants to work full time but doesn't because the cost of about 15 hours a week of childcare would just about negate the additional income.
The cost becomes swingeing when it's all day, but to me if you value your career over your children to that extent you shouldn't have children. Children are supposed to be your everything, and in early years I just can't get the idea of just palming them off so you can go back to the City.
Quite the insult to the nurses, teachers, emergency responders, etc. who are struggling to pay for childcare, really.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,402
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Quite the insult to the nurses, teachers, emergency responders, etc. who are struggling to pay for childcare, really.

Did I say nurses etc? No, I didn't. However, I would again rather help fund them to take the time to bring up their own children.

As someone who for various reasons is unlikely to have children, I just find it bizarre how some people care so little that they just want to rush back to high powered jobs and palm off the best thing that ever happened to them. And if they aren't the best thing that ever happened to them, perhaps having them wasn't right; there are far too many kids out there that seem to be seen as an inconvenience to their parents' lives, be it because of work or because they would rather scroll through Instatwitterbook than give them the attention they need in their early years.

To me we should reform the benefits system so families with pre school children can have an adult at home 100% of the time, like used to be universal before the 1980s. There is no substitute to a child's own parents in the early years. It is how the natural world works, and it's how we should too. That only leaves single parents who can't really avoid needing some form of childcare.

After that, it would be better to reform the school system so the school day is more compatible with working days than fund private childcare providers.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,236
Location
UK
If others can make products better than we can at a lower price that we can and we can't compete with a product that people want at a price they're willing to pay then why should we spend the country's treasure supporting that industry?
That's true, but equally it may be useful in a wider role as part of our economic ecosystem. An unprofitable car industry may support many profitable jobs in its supply chain, and provide a source of trained professional engineers for other small profitable businesses. Often in recent years this country as felt like it's been ran by people trained in corporate accountancy, with a level of short termisim and lack of understanding of the bigger picture and how economic behaviours impact each other. Macro-economics and economics are different things for a reason, and it's time we remembered that.
Laws of supply and demand. If you increase the supply of something while demand remains constant, then the price invariably falls.

(There are a few qualifiers: There needs to be genuine competition. And you would need to build a lot of houses to make a significant difference - but then we need a lot of houses anyway. You'd need to take care to ensure the houses are being built in the places people want to live in.
Unfortunately we seem to be too busy making cramped flats on brownfield sites that really aren't suitable for residential use. I'm not a big fan of Us "Zoning" laws, as it seems to often cause poorly thought out communities that necessitate car ownership; but I do think we should put more thought in as a society before throwing yet more flats up near busy main roads.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,682
Location
Scotland
As someone who for various reasons is unlikely to have children, I just find it bizarre how some people care so little that they just want to rush back to high powered jobs and palm off the best thing that ever happened to them.
You're still not getting it - the people who are struggling to afford childcare aren't the ones in high paying jobs. They can afford to pay for it on account of their high powered jobs.

The people who are struggling are the teachers, nurses, etc.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,402
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You're still not getting it - the people who are struggling to afford childcare aren't the ones in high paying jobs. They can afford to pay for it on account of their high powered jobs.

The people who are struggling are the teachers, nurses, etc.

So, yet again, let's fund them so they can have a parent at home for those vital early years. Both parents working part time is probably your ideal because nobody gets behind in terms of their career.

I know people who still do it, so the funding would not be a case of paying a full wage in most cases. It would in some cases be cheaper than the childcare yet so much better.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,682
Location
Scotland
That's true, but equally it may be useful in a wider role as part of our economic ecosystem. An unprofitable car industry may support many profitable jobs in its supply chain, and provide a source of trained professional engineers for other small profitable businesses.
Seems that if we make good car parts and crappy cars, and other people need good parts to make their good cars then there must be a solution that doesn't involve making crappy cars.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Thirteen years of austerity and Brexit will do that to a country.
Both caused by the Conservative Party. Vote them out and we can perhaps begin to move in the right direction.

Starmer might not be great, but he would be a step in the right direction.

It does seem to be a common thought that the country has really gone downhill since 2010. I'd certainly agree, but I think it's got significantly worse since 2020.

To me, the problems of the UK specifically (as opposed to international problems, such as the cost of living crisis) are, in no particular order:

1. A non-functioning NHS.
2. Self-defeating isolationism caused by the Tory vanity project that is Brexit.
3. A spiralling decline in public transport, with the government seemingly actively encouraging this.
4. Increasing automation of jobs, leading to job losses.
5. Public service cuts.
6. Increased working from home, leading to a more isolated lifestyle, less socialisation, and less of a sense of community at work.

Some of these could be easily fixed (e.g 2) by rejoining the single market and restoring relations with the EU, but you won't get the Tories doing that.

I've heard various theories about the non-functioning NHS; the fact is, it did work reasonably fine up to Covid, but it all seems to have gone to pot since Covid. I'd like to see some investigation into the causes of this and how we can wind the clock back to 2019 or before. I do wonder whether it is as a result of years of underfunding and bad management by the Tory Party, and it's only just reached breaking-point.

For 3) I'm hoping this is a short-term effect caused by the cost of living crisis, but to be quite frank the move to work-from-home isn't helping the viability of the public transport network and I do wonder whether the best solution, in an ideal world, is simply return to the 2019 normal. However I can't see that happening immediately, as work-from-home is good for profits, at least now, because companies can cut costs by selling property. However, perhaps in the coming years if it is seen to be bad for productivity - and thus profits - they will think again. Plus, spending all your time in a "bubble" without a work social atmosphere is not good psychologically, and good psychology is directly related to productivity.

For 4) again we seem to be at the mercy of the free market (if automation increases profits then you're not going to see it reversed): I'm really not sure what we can do here other than if the resulting unemployment leads to a hit in tax revenue.

For 5) this is down to the country's financial problems which I do hope we come out of.

I think the sad fact is that many of these problems are caused by the free-market system, and is driven by the profit motive. I'm really not sure what we can do about this, but perhaps the pendulum will swing back if productivity and profits take a hit as a result, or high unemployment, as a result of automation, leads to lost tax revenue.


One thing that will help is if we get a genuinely more positive and inspirational government, that might make people feel more optimistic. The current government is offering none of that, and the bad vibes given off by the government do nothing to lighten the mood of the rest of us, thus leading to a vicious circle of doom and gloom. By contrast, a government that makes active steps to fix the NHS, to repair relations with the EU, and to improve public services including public transport might (even if it cannot fully realise its aims) give the country the more optimistic kick-start it needs.

I do think things will get better (because we've always recovered in the past, including - eventually - from the after-effects of WWII), but it may now be after 2030. I do wonder whether the 2020s will be comparable with the 1945-55 decade; there was, I believe, a strong recovery in the 2nd half of the 1950s. I'd say under-45 (ish) people have more cause to be optimistic, as they will still be well within the working-age bracket in ten years' time - but for those of us over that age, the clock is ticking.
 
Last edited:

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
8,009
Location
Surrey
Until cost of housing gets sorted out there is no long term solution for this country. For that to happen would take political resolve and any party doing it would probably be denied power for a generation. Therein lies the problem with this country in that politics overrides all sensible decision making si until a new political consensus is created such that everyone is invested in the solution nothing will change.
Personally whilst i want the Tories out i don't want Labour in so i hope we get a hung parliament that requires a coalition of Labour and other minor parties such that sensible change can be enacted.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,682
Location
Scotland
Except the country risks becoming a concrete jungle with little means to escape and enjoy life, and significant travel (e.g. to Wales or the Scottish Highlands) might be required to get away from it all.
We're a ways away during from that's stage though - less than 10% of our land area is built on currently.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Ultimately the biggest thing it could do is arrange for the construction of several million new housing units.
(Sorry, post originally made above so now out of order, reposted to get round the automerge feature).

Except the country risks becoming a concrete jungle with little means to escape and enjoy life, and significant travel (e.g. to Wales or the Scottish Highlands) might be required to get away from it all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

To an extent "preserving the countryside" is only something that affluent people escaping the rat-race really care about. I live in a small former fishing village where there is some development going on. Am I happy about it? No, not really. I may be about to lose part of my sea view.
I will have to disagree there, many of us get quite a bit of joy from walking in the countryside. If we have to travel a significant distance to do this, rather than enjoy what is within easy reach of us, that's not good.

And this is before we consider the ecological damage that building on the countryside can bring.

If there is an over-population problem, surely there are better, and more sustainable, ways to deal with the problem than excessive development (e.g. by encouraging people to have less children, perhaps with financial incentives).
 
Last edited:

CeeJ

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2017
Messages
168
Local government will never approve, or in any way enable, large scale housing construction - it is electoral suicide.
This is true, the purpose (in my mind) of local plans is to provide an opportunity for councils to develop their own plans on how to deliver mandatory housing targets. It gives NIMBYs the chance have a hissy fit once every 5 years, but will remove much of the hassle that comes with regular planning permission. If local authorities don't develop compliant plans, then it'll be up to developers.
Very large numbers of units will have to be laid out rapidly and in a manner that bests leverages available industrial capability.
Completely agree - would be good to identify areas where this would be suitable. Post-war style housing development will need to involve new towns/cities (built with active and public transport as a priority). I suspect along the East-West Rail corridor and other areas with direct rail access to London.
Tweaking individual housing estates to fit in a tiny number of new houses is not going to get anywhere.
It can be a helpful means of investment, though. A decade of austerity has left out public services threadbare, using housing to unlock funding for projects has other benefits (and not strictly housing), plus can improve the viability of other public services (e.g. bus routes).
Except the country risks becoming a concrete jungle with little means to escape and enjoy life, and significant travel (e.g. to Wales or the Scottish Highlands) might be required to get away from it all.
What's the alternative?
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Laws of supply and demand. If you increase the supply of something while demand remains constant, then the price invariably falls.

(There are a few qualifiers: There needs to be genuine competition. And you would need to build a lot of houses to make a significant difference - but then we need a lot of houses anyway. You'd need to take care to ensure the houses are being built in the places people want to live in.
Or do you build them in "average" locations relatively close to centres of employment, where there will be minimal environmental impact?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

What's the alternative?
Deal with population growth in other ways, such as (perhaps financially) encouraging people to have less children. Or make the housing that is built, affordable housing with less of the premium £300,000+ developments which can only be afforded by the well-off in any case.
 
Last edited:

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,141
Location
Elginshire
I will have to disagree there, many of us get quite a bit of joy from walking in the countryside. If we have to travel a significant distance to do this, rather than enjoy what is within easy reach of us, that's not good.

And this is before we consider the ecological damage that building on the countryside can bring.

If there is an over-population problem, surely there are better, and more sustainable, ways to fix the problem than over-development (e.g. avoiding population growth by encouraging people to have less children).
I'm not talking about turning every little chocolate-box hamlet into a mega city, though. We need sensible development in places where people are struggling to find affordable housing, and this is not just a problem faced by those who live in big cities. There will still be plenty of countryside for people to enjoy; the idea that every single bit of rural space is going to be built on is just nonsense.

We could have a lot more green spaces in our towns and cities now if developers stopped putting up vast estates of two-bedroom Barratt boxes and built upwards instead of outwards.

I agree with you in that access to the countryside is a good thing, and I'm lucky enough to be surrounded by it. However, by putting the brakes on all rural development, you're forcing people to move away from the areas where they grew up... into towns and cities!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,322
(Sorry, post originally made above so now out of order, reposted to get round the automerge feature).

Except the country risks becoming a concrete jungle with little means to escape and enjoy life, and significant travel (e.g. to Wales or the Scottish Highlands) might be required to get away from it all.
In order to meaningfully impact development we'd need to do a hell of a lot more than simply make good the existing crushing housing shortage!

Even in the non-London South East, only 10% of land is developed or so.

I will have to disagree there, many of us get quite a bit of joy from walking in the countryside. If we have to travel a significant distance to do this, rather than enjoy what is within easy reach of us, that's not good.
What about the poor who support this lifestyle and are packed into slum-like conditions because not enough housing exists?
If there is an over-population problem, surely there are better, and more sustainable, ways to deal with the problem than excessive development (e.g. by encouraging people to have less children, perhaps with financial incentives).
Reduction in child numbers will justm ake our problems even worse, since we have to get enough working age people to support the huge cohort of economically inactive pensioners that will be an expensive deadweight on the economy from now on.
By mid century, on current trends, a quarter of the entire population will be pensioners and we will have nowhere near enough children to keep the working age population up to support them.

Either you need more workers from children or from immigration, you can't escape this unless you abolish the state pension and require the old to literally work until they drop.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
In order to meaningfully impact development we'd need to do a hell of a lot more than simply make good the existing crushing housing shortage!

Even in the non-London South East, only 10% of land is developed or so.


What about the poor who support this lifestyle and are packed into slum-like conditions because not enough housing exists?
Or is it because of the free-market system and rents are too expensive, and imposing a cap on rents, and extra obligations on landlords to ensure that property is of high quality and maintained properly, would be a better solution?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,337
Both parents working part time is probably your ideal because nobody gets behind in terms of their career.
Part-time workers are discriminated against in many ways. In practice, the only way to ensure that people don't get behind in terms of their career is to make everyone work part time, including childless people. For instance, it could be made mandatory that all workers have to have nine months off work on maternity pay at least once before they are 40. However, that does nothing to make living more affordable or help with stopping the decline in the UK.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,682
Location
Scotland
Or is it because of the free-market system and rents are too expensive, and imposing a cap on rents, and extra obligations on landlords to ensure that property is of high quality, would be a better solution?
That doesn't do anything about the fact that there aren't enough houses in the system.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
I'm not talking about turning every little chocolate-box hamlet into a mega city, though. We need sensible development in places where people are struggling to find affordable housing, and this is not just a problem faced by those who live in big cities. There will still be plenty of countryside for people to enjoy; the idea that every single bit of rural space is going to be built on is just nonsense.

We could have a lot more green spaces in our towns and cities now if developers stopped putting up vast estates of two-bedroom Barratt boxes and built upwards instead of outwards.

I agree with you in that access to the countryside is a good thing, and I'm lucky enough to be surrounded by it. However, by putting the brakes on all rural development, you're forcing people to move away from the areas where they grew up... into towns and cities!

OK, fair points.

I have to admit that the bit I bolded reflects my own lifestyle, as I have always lived in towns and cities since the age of 18, and accessed the countryside via public transport. So I will admit some bias there.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,322
Or is it because of the free-market system and rents are too expensive, and imposing a cap on rents, and extra obligations on landlords to ensure that property is of high quality and maintained properly, would be a better solution?
The reason housing is expensive is because there is not enough to go around!
It's simply supply and demand at work.

Desired number of households continues to climb faster than the housing stock, capping rents won't do anything but gum up the housing system and stop anyone who does not housing ever obtaining any.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
That doesn't do anything about the fact that there aren't enough houses in the system.

So what's the difference now compared to say 30 years ago? Is it solely population growth, or something else?

There must be a reason why there is a need for more houses compared to the past, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it to see if there is an alternative solution that would work.

If there is not, then I will admit there isn't an alternative solution.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,682
Location
Scotland
It would in some cases be cheaper than the childcare yet so much better.
I don't understand why you have this obsession with parents raising their children solo. It's not healthy.

Humans are the only Old World monkey that raises their young in a nuclear family environment. And even then, this only became common in the latter half of the 19th Century.

All of our evolutionary cousins raise their young in a crèche making full use of the resources and skills of the whole group, as we did until the Christian church* enforced monogamy and 'tradtional' gender roles.

It is healthier for children to spend their early years around non-sibling children. It helps with social and interpersonal skills, as well as language development.

*Other religions are available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top