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

[E27007]

The state cares that the houses look a bit like traditional houses. It doesn't overly care if those brick frontages were actually similar looking terracotta cladding, nor really if the roofs look like tiled roofs but are put on as panels. (It quite rightly cares if said cladding is "burny", but that's a different issue).

It's more mortgage companies you need to convince. That's to some extent understandable as historically alternative construction methods have been a bit rubbish.

Just pointing out , the pre-fab houses post-WW2 proved to be more costly to manufacture and erect, than to construct conventional bricks and mortar houses, being one of a reasons why the number of pre-fab houses provided was far lower than anticipated

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just pointing out , the pre-fab houses post-WW2 proved to be more costly to manufacture and erect, than to construct conventional bricks and mortar houses, being one of a reasons why the number of pre-fab houses provided was far lower than anticipated

Technology, of course, has moved on, and basically all office construction is now (wasn't then) to some extent prefabricated.

 

[Sm5]

Im struggling to understand how…

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

the answer is building housing ?
is this thread about the nations housing stock ?


I do know scandinavians love watching our exports of “homes under the hammer”, and “grand designs”, they find it entertaining but dont get our obsession of building our way to profit, of course the Swedes have learned very well how to profit from our obsession for cheap quality sold dear, when it comes to housing interiors…

A bit like the california gold rush, the one that made most money was the guy running the hardware store Buying and Selling tools.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Im struggling to understand how…

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

the answer is building housing ?
is this thread about the nations housing stock ?


I do know scandinavians love watching our exports of “homes under the hammer”, and “grand designs”, they find it entertaining but dont get our obsession of building our way to profit, of course the Swedes have learned very well how to profit from our obsession for cheap quality sold dear, when it comes to housing interiors…

A bit like the california gold rush, the one that made most money was the guy running the hardware store Buying and Selling tools.

Absolutely not just housing. After 453 replies its currently on housing but has been over some other subjects/ideas/bees-in-bonnets.

 

[HSTEd]

Im struggling to understand how…

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

the answer is building housing ?
is this thread about the nations housing stock ?

Because we are suffering from titanic economic distortions caused by a woefully inadequate supply of housing, and what housing does exist is all in the wrong places.

Vast amounts of productive capital is siphoned off and transferred to rent-seeking landowners to use on unearned luxury rather than producing a robust economy,

 

[Magdalia]

Im struggling to understand how…

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

the answer is building housing ?

Here in the Fens lack of housing is a constraint on economic growth. Building more houses is essential to unlock that growth. Cambridge could grow more rapidly but it is difficult and expensive to employ more people because the city does not have enough houses, and inadequate transport infrastructure makes it difficult for people to travel in and out.

 

[GusB]

Housing has featured quite prominently in the discussion so far, but having shelter is one of the basic necessities of life; struggling to afford it has a major effect on health, as does poor quality of housing. If finding a place to live was far less stressful, people might just be more inclined to move in order to improve their circumstances. People on lower incomes may have waited years to be allocated a council or housing association flat or house, and it's understandable that they may not wish to give that up if the alternative is having to rent privately, with all the insecurity that goes along with it.

Providing good quality rented accomodation with secure tenancies is a must, along with ensuring that there is a decent transport system to get them to work, education and other amenities.

 

[yorksrob]

I briefly caught a discussion on the radio last year, a suggestion from a think tank, that to reduce structural income inequality, everyone born into a household (presumably under a certain income) would receive a sort of trust fund when they grew up, that they could use towards starting a business or buying a house for example.

I can't remember how this would have been funded, but it seemed like a good idea on the face of it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Housing has featured quite prominently in the discussion so far, but having shelter is one of the basic necessities of life; struggling to afford it has a major effect on health, as does poor quality of housing. If finding a place to live was far less stressful, people might just be more inclined to move in order to improve their circumstances. People on lower incomes may have waited years to be allocated a council or housing association flat or house, and it's understandable that they may not wish to give that up if the alternative is having to rent privately, with all the insecurity that goes along with it.

Providing good quality rented accomodation with secure tenancies is a must, along with ensuring that there is a decent transport system to get them to work, education and other amenities.

This is a good way of summing it up. One thing that seems to have made this worse in my lifetime is that peoples jobs and their homes seem to have moved further apart. I have now reached the age where a big consideration regarding work is avoiding a commute. I realise I am being a bit stick in the mud as I don't contemplate moving from Croydon - but its getting tempting !.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a good way of summing it up. One thing that seems to have made this worse in my lifetime is that peoples jobs and their homes seem to have moved further apart. I have now reached the age where a big consideration regarding work is avoiding a commute.

Part of that is because both people in a couple usually now work, and if they're both professionals they often won't get suitable jobs in the same place.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Part of that is because both people in a couple usually now work, and if they're both professionals they often won't get suitable jobs in the same place.

And if a couple do get jobs in near enough the same place its likely to be a big city where inner city housing is unattractive/too-expensive (e.g. London).

Your point begs the question. What proportion of home buyers are a family with only one person working (as opposed to both working) ?. I imagine its quite low.

 

[HSTEd]

Beyond the housing issue - we do seem to have a government that almost appears unsure if it still wants to be in the serious state game.

Vaccilations about infrastructure spending, an inability to deliver any kind of meaningful industrial intervention beyond writing meaningless policy papers (that are backed by nothing), and an obsession with creating 'free markets' and then immediately trying to distort them to do things that the market really does not want to do.

The government seems to claim it wants to build the wonderful future, but does not want to actually do anything.

Perhaps the malaise is just across the entire political class, given that even Starmer's response to any question is he will use "regulation" to make the private sector do what he wants.

As if "regulation" was a word like 'Betelgeuse' and that simply repeating it can make anything happen.

 

[Phil56]

I briefly caught a discussion on the radio last year, a suggestion from a think tank, that to reduce structural income inequality, everyone born into a household (presumably under a certain income) would receive a sort of trust fund when they grew up, that they could use towards starting a business or buying a house for example.

I can't remember how this would have been funded, but it seemed like a good idea on the face of it.

Gordon Brown set up Child Trust Funds in 2005 or so and ran for maybe 5 or 6 years, whereby every newborn was given a sum of money in a trust account and parents were encouraged to save extra into it, where the child can only access the funds once they're 18.

I've seen a few articles recently whereby those now reaching 18 years old don't know they have a trust fund, parents can't remember where it was invested, etc. It does seem like a lot of parents just couldn't be bothered to choose how to invest it or add funds into the trust. I suppose, like a lot of things, those with "invested" parents will have researched options, added money in, etc., but parents who couldn't be bothered just ignored it and now don't know how to help their child access the original amount. You can lead a horse to water etc!

 

[Broucek]

Gordon Brown set up Child Trust Funds in 2005 or so and ran for maybe 5 or 6 years, whereby every newborn was given a sum of money in a trust account and parents were encouraged to save extra into it, where the child can only access the funds once they're 18.

I've seen a few articles recently whereby those now reaching 18 years old don't know they have a trust fund, parents can't remember where it was invested, etc. It does seem like a lot of parents just couldn't be bothered to choose how to invest it or add funds into the trust. I suppose, like a lot of things, those with "invested" parents will have researched options, added money in, etc., but parents who couldn't be bothered just ignored it and now don't know how to help their child access the original amount. You can lead a horse to water etc!

Bit like gov't-sponsored help with parenting launched a few years back (sorry, can't remember the name). The intended market weren't interested due to disorganisation and suspicion of authorities while parents in the "already pretty good" category hoovered up the places....

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I briefly caught a discussion on the radio last year, a suggestion from a think tank, that to reduce structural income inequality, everyone born into a household (presumably under a certain income) would receive a sort of trust fund when they grew up, that they could use towards starting a business or buying a house for example.

I can't remember how this would have been funded, but it seemed like a good idea on the face of it.

That might well do a tiny bit to reduce inequality, if it means that children from poor households have some savings guaranteed to them when they reach adulthood, and if the funds are restricted to only allow certain activities - such as starting a business - so can't be just frittered away then there is some merit in that.

But unfortunately, the idea is also at heart just another variant of having the Government give free money to people, and as such is unlikely to do anything to help avoid a general decline. I would argue one of the fundamental long term causes of our decline is the growing tendency to expect the State to solve all problems by - essentially, handing out free money or free other services: That sounds nice, but it doesn't work because doing things that way ignores that you can't - as a nation - have wealth if you don't create the wealth first. And creating wealth does actually require people to work to produce stuff: You can't magic up the wealth from a magic money tree!

As such, giving people free money in the way that this idea suggests is to my mind an example of exactly the kind of thinking that has got the UK into decline in the first place: It's not going to get us out of decline.

 

[Broucek]

That might well do a tiny bit to reduce inequality, if it means that children from poor households have some savings guaranteed to them when they reach adulthood, and if the funds are restricted to only allow certain activities - such as starting a business - so can't be just frittered away then there is some merit in that. (Emphasis added by Broucek)

Someone I know who grew up in a poor family received several thousands in compensation for a childhood injury when she reached either 16 or 18. She blew the lot in a few months on food and drugs. If she'd even had the ambition to spend it on a trip to New York or Australia, I might have applauded....

(I'm aware that a windfall like this would be a huge help for some in these circumstances but the ROI would be, overall, terrible!)

 

[HSTEd]

If you want to spend money today to improve the living standards of future generations, the answer is not to give them a pile of cash at some point in the indeterminate future.

The solution would be to address the problems that are strangling britain!

Build a Severn Barrage or something, produce marginally priced electricity for a century or three!

 

[The Ham]

If you want to spend money today to improve the living standards of future generations, the answer is not to give them a pile of cash at some point in the indeterminate future.

The solution would be to address the problems that are strangling britain!

Build a Severn Barrage or something, produce marginally priced electricity for a century or three!

Indeed, or quite a few other infrastructure projects which reduces the need for oil and/or road building.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That might well do a tiny bit to reduce inequality, if it means that children from poor households have some savings guaranteed to them when they reach adulthood, and if the funds are restricted to only allow certain activities - such as starting a business - so can't be just frittered away then there is some merit in that.

But unfortunately, the idea is also at heart just another variant of having the Government give free money to people, and as such is unlikely to do anything to help avoid a general decline. I would argue one of the fundamental long term causes of our decline is the growing tendency to expect the State to solve all problems by - essentially, handing out free money or free other services: That sounds nice, but it doesn't work because doing things that way ignores that you can't - as a nation - have wealth if you don't create the wealth first. And creating wealth does actually require people to work to produce stuff: You can't magic up the wealth from a magic money tree!

As such, giving people free money in the way that this idea suggests is to my mind an example of exactly the kind of thinking that has got the UK into decline in the first place: It's not going to get us out of decline.

Oh so true. I am staggered how many people I know believe that money comes from a magic tree. They are all for spending on nice to haves but the brutal truth is the country needs to spend money and effort on things that create wealth. That wealth then needs to be shared a bit but whatever paid into to create the wealth needs to see a return. Is wealth a dirty word ?.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, we need to start making things, rather than importing them.

You don't make money by buying stuff.

 

[JamesT]

Well, we need to start making things, rather than importing them.

You don't make money by buying stuff.

You also don’t make money by making stuff that other people can make cheaper than you and/or where the value added in the manufacturing process is low.

 

[yorksrob]

You also don’t make money by making stuff that other people can make cheaper than you and/or where the value added in the manufacturing process is low.

We could start by building some fighter jets and a couple of nuclear power stations. Plenty of value added in the manufacturing process there.

 

[tomuk]

We could start by building some fighter jets and a couple of nuclear power stations. Plenty of value added in the manufacturing process there.

We do build fighter jets. We have built 200 odd Eurofighters and have built the front and rear fuselages for 400 more (Italy, Germany and Spain build the other parts and have local production lines). Rolls Royce and Leonardo in Edinburgh supply the majority of the engine and radar systems to all 600. We have also built the rear fuselages for 1500 F35 Stealth Fighters.

 

[yorksrob]

We do build fighter jets. We have built 200 odd Eurofighters and have built the front and rear fuselages for 400 more (Italy, Germany and Spain build the other parts and have local production lines). Rolls Royce and Leonardo in Edinburgh supply the majority of the engine and radar systems to all 600. We have also built the rear fuselages for 1500 F35 Stealth Fighters.

Well, that's undoubtedly a good start !

 

[Broucek]

You also don’t make money by making stuff that other people can make cheaper than you and/or where the value added in the manufacturing process is low.

Right. And you may money from designing those things, marketing them, financing the manufacturer, insuring the manufacturer and the shipping company and so on. These are all areas where the UK is world class, it's just a bit less visible

 

[Gostav]

Right. And you may money from designing those things, marketing them, financing the manufacturer, insuring the manufacturer and the shipping company and so on. These are all areas where the UK is world class, it's just a bit less visible

Until some companies that found a shortcut began to outsource the designing, you might be surprised how many non-manual labor industries are also outsourced. People may care about the "Made in China" of shoes and hats, but it is difficult to notice that the animation is outsourced by overseas companies (China, the Philippines), the scenes of video games are produced by outsourced companies (most are Chinese), and the programs of the software are written by overseas companies. This has resulted in the loss of a large number of non-manual labor jobs.

 

[Broucek]

Until some companies that found a shortcut began to outsource the designing, you might be surprised how many non-manual labor industries are also outsourced. People may care about the "Made in China" of shoes and hats, but it is difficult to notice that the animation is outsourced by overseas companies (China, the Philippines), the scenes of video games are produced by outsourced companies (most are Chinese), and the programs of the software are written by overseas companies. This has resulted in the loss of a large number of non-manual labor jobs.

I can't comment on those industries but nearly every sector in the UK is complaining about labour shortages...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Im struggling to understand how…

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

the answer is building housing ?
is this thread about the nations housing stock ?


I do know scandinavians love watching our exports of “homes under the hammer”, and “grand designs”, they find it entertaining but dont get our obsession of building our way to profit, of course the Swedes have learned very well how to profit from our obsession for cheap quality sold dear, when it comes to housing interiors…

A bit like the california gold rush, the one that made most money was the guy running the hardware store Buying and Selling tools.

Housing is the single most expensive purchase anyone generally makes as an individual, or the single biggest outgoing if a renter, and also has a massive impact on quality of life and on (by way of location) ability to get appropriate employment. As such, the price and availability of housing has more effect on the economy than any other single factor, by controlling where people can work and what they have left to spend. That's a key reason why fiddling with interest rates has such a massive impact on the economy overall.

 

[al78]

You also don’t make money by making stuff that other people can make cheaper than you and/or where the value added in the manufacturing process is low.

That is why we have gone down the road of providing services given we have exported all our dirty industries to the Far East.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2023 ==

Indeed, or quite a few other infrastructure projects which reduces the need for oil and/or road building.

If only governments weren't in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry:

Why fossil fuel subsidies are so hard to kill

Behind the struggle to stop governments propping up the coal, oil and gas industries.

www.nature.com

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Feb 2023 ==

I can't comment on those industries but nearly every sector in the UK is complaining about labour shortages...

The UK seems to be lacking in people with certain key skills, which means some companies cannot find suitably skilled labour. Lack of investment is another contribution to the productivity problem:

https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/ukeo/ukeo-november-2019-productivity-puzzle.pdf

"Higher investment levels, a stronger
education and skills strategy and
improved adoption of existing
technologies could all help the UK
to close the productivity gap with
other leading economies."

 

[Yew]

Is wealth a dirty word ?.

No, but the exploitation of the labour of the working class that is often required to produce it is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2023 ==

We do build fighter jets. We have built 200 odd Eurofighters and have built the front and rear fuselages for 400 more (Italy, Germany and Spain build the other parts and have local production lines). Rolls Royce and Leonardo in Edinburgh supply the majority of the engine and radar systems to all 600. We have also built the rear fuselages for 1500 F35 Stealth Fighters.

How many Eurofighter orders are on the books at the moment?