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

[nw1]

Agreed completely about the causes. But there doesn't seem to be any clear, attractive, coherent, and practicable programme on offer from Starmer's Labour for us to vote FOR. Rather, it seems that at the next election we're going to be faced with the need to vote AGAINST the Tories to get them out (preferably for a very long time) rather than with something positive to vote in favour of.

I do agree there. Starmer is a bit wishy-washy but he will definitely get my vote.

I'm just hoping that Starmer feels he has to appease the pro-austerity, anti-immigration press right now (hence some of the rather questionable stuff he's coming out with) but once he's in power, we might start a (slow) move away from the last few years. Hopefully we may then see a genuinely inspirational alternative a few years after that - but perhaps not this decade.

But basically first things first. Get the Tories out, even if the alternative isn't great. At least it'll be a move in the right direction.

 

[The Ham]

The south east is crowded, Great Britain is not.

The South East isn't even so that full, look at a map heat South from Woking to Guildford and then there's not a lot until you get to the coast, you can repeat that for most areas once you are not that far out of the M25.

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.

The issue is that you need some childcare, not least due to the cost of housing requiring both parents to work. My parents were able to afford a good lifestyle with just my dad working, for us to do the same (with me earning a similar level compared to the higher tax rate) we both need to work.

Not only that but we live further away from London than my parents.

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).

Look at the age proportions in the 1990's or even before that with what they are now, the number of children and those of working age haven't increased too much, were the big change has been the significant increase in that over 65 with the biggest change being the over 80's. Bringing in policies to reduce the number of children is only going to make that worse.

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

Indeed. With the further from London seeing that fall (with some obvious limited exceptions, like another city or getting to the coast).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2023 ==

The thing we need to do is invest in infrastructure, especially that which means people don't need to use a car.

Whilst that may mean rail, it would also mean building swimming pools, theaters, libraries, and the like - so that more people had facilities locally to them.

 

[duncanp]

Whilst that may mean rail, it would also mean building swimming pools, theaters, libraries, and the like - so that more people had facilities locally to them.

....and GP surgeries, schools and other public services that people are likely to need.

It's all very well building houses on the edge of a town or village, but if there is no increase in GP provision, it will become even more difficult to get an appointment than it already is.

 

[Dr Day]

Could we reduce the number of students, particularly those living away from 'home', without harming the economy, and re-purpose some of the housing stock they take up but are using only part of the year - a bit like second homes? Maybe return some of the urban houses of multiple occupation back into 2/3 bedroom family homes?

 

[JamesT]

Could we reduce the number of students, particularly those living away from 'home', without harming the economy, and re-purpose some of the housing stock they take up but are using only part of the year - a bit like second homes? Maybe return some of the urban houses of multiple occupation back into 2/3 bedroom family homes?

I don’t know about other cities, but certainly in Oxford there has been an increasing amount of dedicated purpose built student accommodation going up. Which should be taking the pressure off the ‘normal’ housing if the students are living there instead.

 

[The Ham]

....and GP surgeries, schools and other public services that people are likely to need.

It's all very well building houses on the edge of a town or village, but if there is no increase in GP provision, it will become even more difficult to get an appointment than it already is.

Indeed.

 

[birchesgreen]

Could we reduce the number of students, particularly those living away from 'home', without harming the economy, and re-purpose some of the housing stock they take up but are using only part of the year - a bit like second homes? Maybe return some of the urban houses of multiple occupation back into 2/3 bedroom family homes?

We need more highly skilled people not less.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could we reduce the number of students, particularly those living away from 'home', without harming the economy, and re-purpose some of the housing stock they take up but are using only part of the year - a bit like second homes? Maybe return some of the urban houses of multiple occupation back into 2/3 bedroom family homes?

There is a fair bit of pressure on this in places like Preston and Lancaster, but the fix is just to build more halls of residence, as they make very good use of land (because students are happy with high rise, but families are not) and students mostly seem to prefer them anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2023 ==

We need more highly skilled people not less.

A lot of degrees don't output highly skilled people, though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2023 ==

The issue is that you need some childcare, not least due to the cost of housing requiring both parents to work. My parents were able to afford a good lifestyle with just my dad working, for us to do the same (with me earning a similar level compared to the higher tax rate) we both need to work.

That just points back to "housing is the major issue", and in an open market, which housing is, the way you bring prices down is to flood the market.

Is green belt, for instance, still serving a purpose? It seems what that does now is protect the investments of rich people while making it hard to build more houses in outer London or Manchester - places where it might be fairly easy to join them onto public transport.

Other than holiday homes and foreign investors buying and leaving empty (both of which, while they are a problem, are confined to very specific places) in the end we need enough houses for people to live in. The question of a home as an investment is a bit neither here or there, as it just affects the rental-sales balance, not the number of homes in locations where people want to live, which is itself insufficient.

(As for CGT on primary homes, definitely not, that would just be a tax grab which like stamp duty would further restrict downsizing and workforce mobility. If we need tax income, we need to be honest about it and increase income tax).

 

[HSTEd]

Could we reduce the number of students, particularly those living away from 'home', without harming the economy, and re-purpose some of the housing stock they take up but are using only part of the year - a bit like second homes? Maybe return some of the urban houses of multiple occupation back into 2/3 bedroom family homes?

And how do you propose to operate a University system on that basis? Will you be providing for millions of units of additional dedicated student accomodation? Or do you propose the end of large scale University operation?

It's worth noting that University accomodation is in use nine or ten months of the year, its not as if it is empty most of the time or anything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And how do you propose to operate a University system on that basis? Will you be providing for millions of units of additional dedicated student accomodation?

Dedicated student accommodation is generally operated for profit by private companies these days. It makes very efficient use of land and is often brownfield land too. It probably would be worth providing for it on this basis, yes - it would just require some streamlined planning and disused land acquisition legislation to do so. It would cost the state next to nothing and would release houses for families.

 

[Brubulus]

....and GP surgeries, schools and other public services that people are likely to need.

It's all very well building houses on the edge of a town or village, but if there is no increase in GP provision, it will become even more difficult to get an appointment than it already is.

Ensure that public services are actually built with new developments.

There is a fair bit of pressure on this in places like Preston and Lancaster, but the fix is just to build more halls of residence, as they make very good use of land (because students are happy with high rise, but families are not) and students mostly seem to prefer them anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2023 ==

NIMBYs (by extension planners) tend to hate them for the concentration of potentially partying young people, making them very hard to build in the current system.

A lot of degrees don't output highly skilled people, though.


That just points back to "housing is the major issue", and in an open market, which housing is, the way you bring prices down is to flood the market.

Agree - New cities (especially on government owned land) are a very good way to flood the market of a given region quickly and reduce housing pressure.

Is green belt, for instance, still serving a purpose? It seems what that does now is protect the investments of rich people while making it hard to build more houses in outer London or Manchester - places where it might be fairly easy to join them onto public transport.

So long as any new development is done at a significant density, as the green belt did generally do very well at preventing UK cities from having suburban car-based sprawl.

Other than holiday homes and foreign investors buying and leaving empty (both of which, while they are a problem, are confined to very specific places) in the end we need enough houses for people to live in. The question of a home as an investment is a bit neither here or there, as it just affects the rental-sales balance, not the number of homes in locations where people want to live, which is itself insufficient.

(As for CGT on primary homes, definitely not, that would just be a tax grab which like stamp duty would further restrict downsizing and workforce mobility. If we need tax income, we need to be honest about it and increase income tax).

Taxes are already very high - do remember the withdrawal of benefits as income goes up creates some extremely high marginal tax rates even for those who are not very wealthy.
Taxes on ownership - especially in higher demand/value areas, possibly based on land value to encourage higher densities where appropriate are the best way to raise money from property. Higher charges would encourage downsizing and reduce second home ownership/empty investment properties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

NIMBYs (by extension planners) tend to hate them for the concentration of potentially partying young people, making them very hard to build in the current system.

There's a fair bit of land in the northern cities where there aren't that many houses, though. For instance, echoing the former Castle Irwell, a student village like Owens Park could be built on former industrial land in Ardwick (bonus: could help fund and bring users to the station!)

Agree - New cities (especially on government owned land) are a very good way to flood the market of a given region quickly and reduce housing pressure.

Ecotowns built surrounding new stations (planning gain) or even existing ones are a good place to start. For instance this could make the Marston Vale less of a basket case by providing it some customers! Rail will always win people over far better than bus. Building bigger poses more complex transport challenges - there's a thread knocking about somewhere about what Milton Keynes but not for the car would look like - but there'd be plenty of scope to e.g. build a 10K inhabitant town centred on Rainford Junction village and extend Merseyrail to it.

Yes, people would whine, but we have to do something.

So long as any new development is done at a significant density, as the green belt did generally do very well at preventing UK cities from having suburban car-based sprawl.

I think the Dutch demonstrate that you don't have to go super dense (though yes equally it shouldn't be sprawl, but most new housing estates aren't, because more houses on less land means more profit - certainly newer parts of Milton Keynes are much higher density than 1970s parts). It's all about quality public transport and cycle/e-bike facilities.

Taxes are already very high - do remember the withdrawal of benefits as income goes up creates some extremely high marginal tax rates even for those who are not very wealthy.

That situation is caused by the dishonesty of not just wanting to pop a bit more on the higher rate, and I totally agree it is stupid.

Taxes on ownership - especially in higher demand/value areas, possibly based on land value to encourage higher densities where appropriate are the best way to raise money from property. Higher charges would encourage downsizing and reduce second home ownership/empty investment properties.

I'd certainly agree that if you are going to tax residential property in any form it should be on ownership and not on sale.

And again for those who'd moan - we basically already have that in the form of Council Tax - rather a blunt instrument of course, and on residency rather than ownership, but it isn't that wide of the mark.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Does this not make the problem worse though? Automation means less jobs available, and presumably even more competition for the jobs that are left.

No. Automation generally means a higher standard of living for everyone because you get to produce more wealth per person. Automation is one of the main reasons why we no longer have a subsistence economy with basically everyone living hand-to-mouth, and with the threat of starvation if there's a bad harvest. By the way, the other crucial reason why we no longer have a subsistence economy, nor live under constant threat of starvation is *shock, horror*.... capitalism.

We have after all been steadily automating for about the last 300 years, but there still seem to be more jobs than people willing to do the jobs. That would appear to discredit any theory that automation (in the long run) means fewer jobs.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The argument that people are losing jobs is rubbish. We actually have a shortage of people to fill jobs *. Automation/computers seems to have never actually made people unemployed - but if it did then we could get rid of farm machinery and put people to work in the fields - any takers ?.

EDIT - what @DynamicSpirit says above - I typed too slow !.

Another advantage of automation is that it means machines can do the jobs that people over 66 would be forced back to do.

Retirement age - we are living too long !. So up goes the retirement age. Alternative is a higher birth rate to supply more working age people who will in later years then, in turn, require even more working age people to support them.

We need to either make the system able to support older people better by requiring fewer working age people to work OR we have to go for continuous growth.

* = I do sense that many people as old as me have given up working. They were furloughed and have smelt the freedom - those that can afford it are tightening their belts and earning less. If you have worked since leaving school/further education and then suddenly stop working its the first time you have had a chance to sample retirement and I think many wonder why they ran so hard on the treadmill not getting anywhere.

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.

As a grandfather I spent time looking after my granddaughter while the parents paid the mortgage. I do think this is harder to achieve with a mobile population because the family often move a long way from the grandparents.

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.

I agree and there is less chance of one parent staying at home because nowadays economically both parents have to work.

I fear the school day would need to be longer than the normal working day so that a working parent can get from/to the school from work.

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.

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.

I have often noticed that German industry is run by people with an engineering qualification. Whereas in the UK we have companies run by accountants and people with business degrees - they know nothing about the actual products being made.

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.

I think our good parts now go in good cars made by Honda, Nissan etc.

What you have there is a ponzi scheme. Society can't just breed more people every generation as there won't be the resources to support everyone.

Whatever you want to call it population growth gets harder and herder to sustain.

The whole point of relocating Parliament is to change attitudes in Government to left behind areas and improve communications to those areas
The whole point of decreasing the inheritance tax threshold is to prevent the build of wealth in those who already have wealth
Capital gains tax on housing prevents people thinking of property as an investment instead of a home
UK introduced a digital sales tax to address part of this issue - you can introduce a withholding tax for overseas residents

Wealth tax - should I be punished for wanting to save money for the future ? - if so then I will spend it all and then claim benefits.
Capital Gains tax on my house means I cannot hand it down to my grandchildren. It means owners would no longer care about the property. Is it wrong for people to invest in their family's future ?.

I do agree there. Starmer is a bit wishy-washy but he will definitely get my vote.

I'm just hoping that Starmer feels he has to appease the pro-austerity, anti-immigration press right now (hence some of the rather questionable stuff he's coming out with) but once he's in power, we might start a (slow) move away from the last few years. Hopefully we may then see a genuinely inspirational alternative a few years after that - but perhaps not this decade.

But basically first things first. Get the Tories out, even if the alternative isn't great. At least it'll be a move in the right direction.

My bold. So lie ? - but that what we blame politicians for anyway. And we all know the promises they make are often hard to achieve so who listens.

 

[HSTEd]

I think the Dutch demonstrate that you don't have to go super dense (though yes equally it shouldn't be sprawl, but most new housing estates aren't, because more houses on less land means more profit - certainly newer parts of Milton Keynes are much higher density than 1970s parts).

The cost of land in a development, as separate from planning permission, is negligible in terms of the cost of the development.

The real reason housing is denser now is because the government decrees it be so, the planning rules have continuously increased the required number of units per hectare. A cynic might suggest the government has been trying to force people into flats without appearing to do so.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion, pushed by many, that suburbia is incompatible with public transport.... given that suburbia predates the car!

 

[tbtc]

Always interesting to see how some things like childcare/ demographics show the authoritarian streaks in some otherwise liberal posters

If the UK isn’t ready to have a serious conversation about the consequences of Brexit (e.g. the way we’ve seen living standards for ordinary people overtaken by those in B-list and C-list countries) then I don’t think there’s any chance of the seismic change required by some of the suggestions on here.

One of the popular themes of pro-Brexit arguments was that “Of course we can afford XYZ; we’re the world’s fourth largest economy”. Well, we’re number six now, and plummeting… something needs to be done, and cutting ourselves off from the friction free single market doesn’t seem to be helping…

The issue is that you need some childcare, not least due to the cost of housing requiring both parents to work. My parents were able to afford a good lifestyle with just my dad working, for us to do the same (with me earning a similar level compared to the higher tax rate) we both need to work.

Not only that but we live further away from London than my parents

This, many times over!

Talk of childcare generally seems to ignore the elephant in the room that living standards have got progressively worse so that one typical wage is no longer sufficient to raise a typical family and a second parent needs to work too - that’s not childcare’s fault (although it has increased a lot in price), that’s a symptom of a society where the “working poor” are a recognised group

We seemingly accept that the government needs to post huge sums in “in work benefits” (because private wages aren’t sufficient), we seemingly accept that people working full time still need Food Banks (not just the preserve of the long term unemployed, nor are churches only soliciting food donations at Harvest Festival time)… It’s effectively a huge subsidy to private employers but nobody is taking about this

I know that “comedy” isn’t “reality”, but I grew up in an era where it still felt believable that housewives were at home all day - nowadays an “adventurous” milkman or window cleaner would have a lot less fun!

Fiddling with the staffing ratios at nurses isn’t going to fix much

The need to travel further and further for employment (as alluded to in your point about not living near your parents) is another issue. Lots of twenty/thirty somethings in big cities migrated from Provincial towns because the pit/ car factory/ fishing jobs etc no longer exist, but that means trying to bring children up far from parental support. But you can’t get the same wages if you abandoned London/ Manchester/ Leeds etc for going back to backwater towns… so what do people do?

Look at the age proportions in the 1990's or even before that with what they are now, the number of children and those of working age haven't increased too much, were the big change has been the significant increase in that over 65 with the biggest change being the over 80's. Bringing in policies to reduce the number of children is only going to make that worse

True, but the government are basing everything on appeasing those pensioners

A lot of those over eighties so have “Family sized” houses but are in nursing homes/ care homes/ hospital beds but the relatives don’t sell the place until death, so the “housing ladder” feels a bit like a sport where promotion to the top flight is severely restricted - families with kids struggle in smaller places because they can’t afford the artificial lower number of bigger houses becoming available (a scarcity which has pushed the prices up)

Obviously the increased life expectancy is A Good Thing, and I’m not saying that ALL over eighties are wealthy (etc etc), but there are sufficient examples of single pensioners rattling around in “Family sized” houses to skew the market

But it’s easier to blame typical tabloids scapegoats like Albanians etc for the fact that people can’t afford houses, rather than question how we incentivise people to “downsize” (e.g. waiving some Inheritance Tax)

There is a fair bit of pressure on this in places like Preston and Lancaster, but the fix is just to build more halls of residence, as they make very good use of land (because students are happy with high rise, but families are not) and students mostly seem to prefer them anyway

Interesting, as the opposite seems to be the case in this side of the Pennines; the two large universities in Sheffield have got rid of a lot of their Halls Of Residence as Students seem to prefer living in regular private accommodation

The idea that final year students would opt for Halls to knuckle down as they approached their final semesters/ terms seemed “received wisdom” when I was a student but nowadays a lot of students in South Yorkshire don’t even bother with one year in Halls of Residence

 

[CeeJ]

The idea that final year students would opt for Halls to knuckle down as they approached their final semesters/ terms seemed “received wisdom” when I was a student but nowadays a lot of students in South Yorkshire don’t even bother with one year in Halls of Residence

An interesting trend I noticed in the past decade is the way Halls of Residence had to evolve quite rapidly. Big buildings with 20 catered students to a floor gutted and replaced with self-catered flats of 4-5. The rapid increase in living standards, too. Students generally expect high-quality accommodation, which comes at a cost for universities. I can't speak for Sheffield but it may be much of the sold-off accommodation lacked the ability to modernise (without great expense), and simply wasn't popular enough to maintain. I also suspect there is much more home-based university study compared to pre-pandemic, although I don't have anything to back that up.

I fear the school day would need to be longer than the normal working day so that a working parent can get from/to the school from work.

Frankly if it means abolishing homework it might be a sacrifice both students and teachers are willing to make...

I fundamentally disagree with the notion, pushed by many, that suburbia is incompatible with public transport.... given that suburbia predates the car!

I do suspect much of it relates to how influenced we are by American suburbia, which is incompatible with public transport. A lot of areas in outer south-east London I'd define as suburban and have managed to sustain the local commuter lines.

 

[HSTEd]

Interesting, as the opposite seems to be the case in this side of the Pennines; the two large universities in Sheffield have got rid of a lot of their Halls Of Residence as Students seem to prefer living in regular private accommodation

The idea that final year students would opt for Halls to knuckle down as they approached their final semesters/ terms seemed “received wisdom” when I was a student but nowadays a lot of students in South Yorkshire don’t even bother with one year in Halls of Residence

There are halls at my University with very high return rates, with it being artificially held down in some cases.

However for many years there was a drastic shortage of student accomodation so the University made it very difficult for people to get back in, so almost everyone did a year and left. Later on it got to the point that large numbers of people never went near a University run hall because there simply weren't enough spaces to go around.

As new construction private halls have flooded the market this may be changing somewhat, and the University is now attempting to encourage returners to University Halls rather than restrict them - there is competition now!

 

[Gostav]

The argument that people are losing jobs is rubbish. We actually have a shortage of people to fill jobs *. Automation/computers seems to have never actually made people unemployed - but if it did then we could get rid of farm machinery and put people to work in the fields - any takers ?.

Just like why so many semaphore signals are still use in UK, during this period I did some videos about that and my friends in Japan were shocked how the railway departments can afford the huge human cost on maintain and keep running those mechical signals and signal boxes. I think a similar lack of automation in various fields has greatly increased the cost of living for the public.

 

[yorksrob]

Just like why so many semaphore signals are still use in UK, during this period I did some videos about that and my friends in Japan were shocked how the railway departments can afford the huge human cost on maintain and keep running those mechical signals and signal boxes. I think a similar lack of automation in various fields has greatly increased the cost of living for the public.

Ultimately people have do do something. If you carry on automating everything, eventually you'll end up with an unproductive section of the population. Japan itself was well known for having railway staff employed to push people onto commuter trains - a huge human cost. But ultimately those people were able to function in the wider economy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2023 ==

Always interesting to see how some things like childcare/ demographics show the authoritarian streaks in some otherwise liberal posters

If the UK isn’t ready to have a serious conversation about the consequences of Brexit (e.g. the way we’ve seen living standards for ordinary people overtaken by those in B-list and C-list countries) then I don’t think there’s any chance of the seismic change required by some of the suggestions on here.

One of the popular themes of pro-Brexit arguments was that “Of course we can afford XYZ; we’re the world’s fourth largest economy”. Well, we’re number six now, and plummeting… something needs to be done, and cutting ourselves off from the friction free single market doesn’t seem to be helping…



This, many times over!

Talk of childcare generally seems to ignore the elephant in the room that living standards have got progressively worse so that one typical wage is no longer sufficient to raise a typical family and a second parent needs to work too - that’s not childcare’s fault (although it has increased a lot in price), that’s a symptom of a society where the “working poor” are a recognised group

We seemingly accept that the government needs to post huge sums in “in work benefits” (because private wages aren’t sufficient), we seemingly accept that people working full time still need Food Banks (not just the preserve of the long term unemployed, nor are churches only soliciting food donations at Harvest Festival time)… It’s effectively a huge subsidy to private employers but nobody is taking about this

I know that “comedy” isn’t “reality”, but I grew up in an era where it still felt believable that housewives were at home all day - nowadays an “adventurous” milkman or window cleaner would have a lot less fun!

Fiddling with the staffing ratios at nurses isn’t going to fix much

The need to travel further and further for employment (as alluded to in your point about not living near your parents) is another issue. Lots of twenty/thirty somethings in big cities migrated from Provincial towns because the pit/ car factory/ fishing jobs etc no longer exist, but that means trying to bring children up far from parental support. But you can’t get the same wages if you abandoned London/ Manchester/ Leeds etc for going back to backwater towns… so what do people do?



True, but the government are basing everything on appeasing those pensioners

A lot of those over eighties so have “Family sized” houses but are in nursing homes/ care homes/ hospital beds but the relatives don’t sell the place until death, so the “housing ladder” feels a bit like a sport where promotion to the top flight is severely restricted - families with kids struggle in smaller places because they can’t afford the artificial lower number of bigger houses becoming available (a scarcity which has pushed the prices up)

Obviously the increased life expectancy is A Good Thing, and I’m not saying that ALL over eighties are wealthy (etc etc), but there are sufficient examples of single pensioners rattling around in “Family sized” houses to skew the market

But it’s easier to blame typical tabloids scapegoats like Albanians etc for the fact that people can’t afford houses, rather than question how we incentivise people to “downsize” (e.g. waiving some Inheritance Tax)



Interesting, as the opposite seems to be the case in this side of the Pennines; the two large universities in Sheffield have got rid of a lot of their Halls Of Residence as Students seem to prefer living in regular private accommodation

The idea that final year students would opt for Halls to knuckle down as they approached their final semesters/ terms seemed “received wisdom” when I was a student but nowadays a lot of students in South Yorkshire don’t even bother with one year in Halls of Residence

Britain's problem is that it is over-relient on imports, yet outsources the profits of too much economic activity. The inflation problem is certainly exacerbated by Brexit, but it also pre-dates it.

 

[RT4038]

Ultimately people have do do something. If you carry on automating everything, eventually you'll end up with an unproductive section of the population.

I think you are worrying too much. We currently have a shortage of labour, which seems to be set on getting worse due to an ageing population (which is also creating more and more care jobs which cannot be easily automated). Many people are also complaining about their work/life balance and would welcome working fewer hours. Not everything can be practically automated anyway [who maintains the automation, for instance?) When we get to the stage of having surplus labour that is the time to engage in job creation, not in futile attempts to hang on to outdated practices to try and prevent us from getting to that point.

 

[nw1]

The argument that people are losing jobs is rubbish. We actually have a shortage of people to fill jobs *. Automation/computers seems to have never actually made people unemployed - but if it did then we could get rid of farm machinery and put people to work in the fields - any takers ?.

I said that because it seems to be happening on a very large scale now. Where are all these new jobs coming from, to replace (say) Boots or restaurant till staff? Genuinely curious, and it's contrary to the normal observation that economic hard times equal high unemployment.

* = I do sense that many people as old as me have given up working. They were furloughed and have smelt the freedom - those that can afford it are tightening their belts and earning less. If you have worked since leaving school/further education and then suddenly stop working its the first time you have had a chance to sample retirement and I think many wonder why they ran so hard on the treadmill not getting anywhere.

An odd way of thinking (to me). Retiring before the age of 60 would, to me, be not much fun. Through having no job, you'd basically lose your raison d'etre, and have to live on a fraction of your former income. So you'd have all this "freedom" but no money to enjoy it with.

On the other hand I would object to raising retirement age above 70.

 

[RT4038]

Housing shares between people not at University were a comparative rarity relatively recently.

Now you are lucky if a family unit gets a housing unit to itself before 30, possibly before 40. Hence the huge increase of people forced to live with their parents because they simply haven o reasonable alternative.

Ownership or not of the housing is not the issue, the problem is that there simply are not enough housing units for the number of desired households. People are being forced to pack into increasingly unsuitable accomodation by the runaway increase inp prices.
If this continues we will progress from 'merely' converting a two-up two-down into a three-or-four "bedroom" house in multiple occupation by 4-8 people, to professional workers forced into defacto barrack blocks with bunk beds.

Most people my age struggle to afford more than one room to their own and spend a huge portion of their income even to obtain that. People are increasingly willing to illegally live in sheds and the like because its the only way they can get reasonable housing provision.

Even if you believe that people have no right to reasonable amounts of housing space, this still causes huge economic distortion because people are forced to chose where they live based solely on the availability on housing - not where their best opportunities lie. This causes major reduction in aggregate economic output due to inefficient distribution of the workforce. Let alone the psychological impact of being forced to live (and increasingly work) in a single room

So are you saying that the shortage (which is on price, rather than actual capacity?) is for single people in their own houses? Not that long ago single people generally didn't leave their parents until they got married, or they lived on their own in a room.
I note that you refer to 'desired' households - which in terms of affordability is presumably mainly single people in their own houses, as by and large two people living together with two incomes can afford to buy their own property. [This is a generality - it will depend on the size of incomes and the desirability of the location - but I suppose these things drive ambition]
So the question is, can our society sustain/afford that kind of desired living?

 

[yorksrob]

I think you are worrying too much. We currently have a shortage of labour, which seems to be set on getting worse due to an ageing population (which is also creating more and more care jobs which cannot be easily automated). Many people are also complaining about their work/life balance and would welcome working fewer hours. Not everything can be practically automated anyway [who maintains the automation, for instance?) When we get to the stage of having surplus labour that is the time to engage in job creation, not in futile attempts to hang on to outdated practices to try and prevent us from getting to that point.

Fair point, but why worry about a small percentage of railway with antiquated signalling when those signallers are contributing to the wider economy anyway.

This is all moot when set against the real reason we have mechanical signalling - the capital cost of replacing more modern signalling systems every 30-40 years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So are you saying that the shortage (which is on price, rather than actual capacity?) is for single people in their own houses? Not that long ago single people generally didn't leave their parents until they got married, or they lived on their own in a room.
I note that you refer to 'desired' households - which in terms of affordability is presumably mainly single people in their own houses, as by and large two people living together with two incomes can afford to buy their own property. [This is a generality - it will depend on the size of incomes and the desirability of the location - but I suppose these things drive ambition]
So the question is, can our society sustain/afford that kind of desired living?

Easily, yes. Single people are generally more willing to live in flats, and you can get 6-8* one** bed flats in a building on the footprint of a typical suburban semi-detached pair of houses. So we just need to build the right properties (and make those flats desirable rather than poorly designed rubbish, and get rid of leasehold so flats are desirable from a legal point of view too). And keep them on the sales market, not all rented out or Airbnb. Plus a development like that makes more money than the semis.

But besides that, it used to be the case that one income could afford a home, which meant that children could be brought up by their own parents in those critical early years too.

Not everything was better in the past, but housing availability and quality certainly was.

* 6 if you don't want to go higher than the house (remember you can have a flat in the roofspace), 8 if you're willing to put an extra storey on, you'd probably not want to go much higher due to it changing the feel of the place and requiring complex things like lifts.

** Or small two-beds if well designed. A lounge-kitchen-diner takes up far less space than three separate rooms and is often preferred, similarly a shower room takes up less space than a full bathroom but again is mostly preferred by single people, in particular single men. With those space economies you can easily fit in a box room for home-office workers and guests.

 

[Phil56]

So are you saying that the shortage (which is on price, rather than actual capacity?) is for single people in their own houses? Not that long ago single people generally didn't leave their parents until they got married, or they lived on their own in a room.
I note that you refer to 'desired' households - which in terms of affordability is presumably mainly single people in their own houses, as by and large two people living together with two incomes can afford to buy their own property. [This is a generality - it will depend on the size of incomes and the desirability of the location - but I suppose these things drive ambition]
So the question is, can our society sustain/afford that kind of desired living?

I think we also have to look at the effect of the expansion of universities. If you go to most Uni towns/cities, there are now huge blocks of Uni accommodation, often being studio flats or clusters of rooms around communal kitchen etc. That has obviously taken away capacity for housing for non-students in terms of land, labour and building materials. If we hadn't increased Uni places, those students would probably still be living at home and working or studying more locally. Then, of course, huge numbers of foreign students come to UK universities and likewise need somewhere to live. In some Uni towns/cities, huge numbers of "homes" previously occupied by locals have been converted to student accommodation, increasing the shortage of housing for non students. What is worse is that a lot of these student accommodations are only actually occupied for 30-35 weeks of the year during term time. I think that student accommodation has made the housing shortage worse and it's not something that gets much attention.

 

[RT4038]

But besides that, it used to be the case that one income could afford a home, which meant that children could be brought up by their own parents in those critical early years too.

Whilst in terms of the child this may be preferable, this is just not going to happen in modern society, so there is really not much point pursuing, because (a) going forward both parents are required in the labour force (1 childminder looks after max of 6 children, so a net gain of 5 workers) and (b) lots of parents wish to follow and maximise their careers, which just can't happen taking 5+ years (more if multiple children) out of the workplace

But besides that, it used to be the case that one income could afford a home, which meant that children could be brought up by their own parents in those critical early years too.

As I recall, the big change to this was during the Major Government, when Building Societies/banks were allowed to take both incomes into account in determining how much they could lend. This led to a massive increase in the amount of money available to purchase houses and consequently an explosion in house prices to soak up this money, meaning that both working became essential rather than a lifestyle choice. The by product was to increase the labour force, required because of the ageing population. Of course, not being allowed to borrow against both incomes had become quite unpopular and right at the beginning of the change (until the prices rose) some couples bought much better properties than they had. Difficult to see how, politically, this could be turned back, even if it was desirable.

Not everything was better in the past, but housing availability and quality certainly was.

Perhaps a little viewed through rose tinted lenses? Lots of single people lived with their parents, or in rooms, before. Lots of people couldn't afford houses, or were accommodated in sink estates etc. Not so good, just differently bad I suspect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I recall, the big change to this was during the Major Government, when Building Societies/banks were allowed to take both incomes into account in determining how much they could lend. This led to a massive increase in the amount of money available to purchase houses and consequently an explosion in house prices to soak up this money, meaning that both working became essential rather than a lifestyle choice. The by product was to increase the labour force, required because of the ageing population. Of course, not being allowed to borrow against both incomes had become quite unpopular and right at the beginning of the change (until the prices rose) some couples bought much better properties than they had. Difficult to see how, politically, this could be turned back, even if it was desirable.

Very, very easy - flood the market with new housing, both for sale and for rent at economic rates. If it becomes a buyer's market, prices will reduce.

 

[RT4038]

Very, very easy - flood the market with new housing, both for sale and for rent at economic rates. If it becomes a buyer's market, prices will reduce.

Economic rates to whom? Not the building industry presumably? The new housing would have to be built with public money, and therefore presumably diverted from other expenditure such as education, health and rail etc.) and would disadvantage, with negative equity, anyone who has bought a house recently. Flooding the market will just encourage more people to live singly in large properties.
I am not so sure that there is a need for massive building of new homes, probably more repurposing of what we have (possibly including knocking down of some current stock and replacing with flats for singles), a realisation that single people are not going to be living in family homes unless they are in high earning jobs; and a sensible policy to enable older people to downsize comfortably.
In my town there are signs that this flat building/re purposing is going on already.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Economic rates to whom? Not the building industry presumably? The new housing would have to be built with public money, and therefore presumably diverted from other expenditure such as education, health and rail etc.) and would disadvantage, with negative equity, anyone who has bought a house recently. Flooding the market will just encourage more people to live singly in large properties.

House prices are much lower in the north, and it's still economic to build profitably there. So there is a lot of potential flex in the south. It could be the case that housebuilders won't do it, in which case the Government should do it itself, it would still be for a modest profit.

I am not so sure that there is a need for massive building of new homes, probably more repurposing of what we have (possibly including knocking down of some current stock and replacing with flats for singles), a realisation that single people are not going to be living in family homes unless they are in high earning jobs; and a sensible policy to enable older people to downsize comfortably.
In my town there are signs that this flat building/re purposing is going on already.

As I said I think most single people would be happy to live in quality flats. I'd actually prefer one. The main reason I live in a (smallish) house rather than a flat is that most UK flats are rubbish (badly constructed, uselessly small balconies, poorly designed layouts etc) and that leasehold is a feudalist scam. Plus many flats are overpriced, being sold for more than small, older Victorian terraced houses despite costing far less than houses to build and using far less valuable land.

Solve those and I'd be glad to move into one, I'd prefer it anyway.

It's the same as students. Good quality, plentiful halls and they'll choose them. Nobody likes living in a poorly maintained rathole, it's done out of necessity because most universities don't have enough halls for more than just the first years.