Why Britain doesn’t build(worksinprogress.co)
worksinprogress.co
Why Britain doesn’t build
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-britain-doesnt-build
519 comments
1. Politicians and the bureaucratic class have deep investments in real estate
2. Foreign money keeps flooding into western economies to find a safe haven and lack of capital controls. A bulk of it goes into real estate.
3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners.
The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or change in zoning laws. Entire countries seem to be perfectly okay with watching its young people be priced out of cities and areas they work in as long as "number go up".
All the hand-wringing about political gridlock is just a cover for basic greed. Detestable.
2. Foreign money keeps flooding into western economies to find a safe haven and lack of capital controls. A bulk of it goes into real estate.
3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners.
The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or change in zoning laws. Entire countries seem to be perfectly okay with watching its young people be priced out of cities and areas they work in as long as "number go up".
All the hand-wringing about political gridlock is just a cover for basic greed. Detestable.
It’s even worse because there’s an adult social care crisis, a pension crisis, and in some areas a rundown NHS and school system. So all the incentives are towards not just home ownership but also additional buy-to-let ownership so that those with the means can afford private health care, dentistry, school fees for their kids/grandkids, inheritance for the kids who are priced out of the market, and retirement.
It’s a gravity well of incentives towards absolute property gluttony and creating an overheated housing market and massive social inequality.
It’s a gravity well of incentives towards absolute property gluttony and creating an overheated housing market and massive social inequality.
> adult social care crisis, a pension crisis, and in some areas a rundown NHS
I remember about 10 years ago, "the idea" was that retirees would, as their health starts to decline, do equity-release in their homes to pay for their care needs (on the basis that the NHS would start to means-test care based on the value of all assets, including housing, so that if an OAP has £1m locked-up in their house and they probably have less than 5-6 years to live it's only fair that they liquidate some of that wealth instead of expecting the NHS to pay for everything - while those who don't own their own houses, would still benefit from free NHS care).
I left the UK just-over 10 years ago (but I still visit my parents a few times a year and do the WFH-thing-but-abroad) so I'm not as clued-in on subtler points of public policy, but I'm curious if that's still the case? ...or if the Tories reversed that decision in the 8 years they've held power? (after-all, it would be anathema to Daily Mail readers, who give me the impression that they fully expect to enjoy their house-prices even after they're dead).
I remember about 10 years ago, "the idea" was that retirees would, as their health starts to decline, do equity-release in their homes to pay for their care needs (on the basis that the NHS would start to means-test care based on the value of all assets, including housing, so that if an OAP has £1m locked-up in their house and they probably have less than 5-6 years to live it's only fair that they liquidate some of that wealth instead of expecting the NHS to pay for everything - while those who don't own their own houses, would still benefit from free NHS care).
I left the UK just-over 10 years ago (but I still visit my parents a few times a year and do the WFH-thing-but-abroad) so I'm not as clued-in on subtler points of public policy, but I'm curious if that's still the case? ...or if the Tories reversed that decision in the 8 years they've held power? (after-all, it would be anathema to Daily Mail readers, who give me the impression that they fully expect to enjoy their house-prices even after they're dead).
Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into.
That may not be fair, but when most voters are property owners you're not going to get a different outcome.
This is an interesting topic because it highlights how the political and economic culture is broken and incapable of effective national strategy. I don't think housing, health, industrial policy, education, or anything else can be fixed without a complete overhaul of the UK's political parties, media, and systems.
That may not be fair, but when most voters are property owners you're not going to get a different outcome.
This is an interesting topic because it highlights how the political and economic culture is broken and incapable of effective national strategy. I don't think housing, health, industrial policy, education, or anything else can be fixed without a complete overhaul of the UK's political parties, media, and systems.
> Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into.
It's not as simple as "give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into". If you have 20K in your bank account and no property, you have to pay for your care. If you own 2 flats worth 1M each and have 10K in your bank account, you pay nothing. The so-called "dementia tax" would have make this situation fairer. Besides, they wouldn't have to release equity while alive, but the cost of care would be paid by the heirs upon selling or inheriting their parent's property.
Imagine a scenario where you have 20K in your bank account. You child inherits only 10K, because you had to pay for your care. Now imagine you have 2 flats and 10K in your bank account. Your child gets the whole lot. Does this look fair?
Theresa May, that, as far as I'm concerned, should be sent to the Hague for architecting the hostile environment for foreigners, had only one non-demented idea in her entire political career: making social care fairer, and that's what killed her premiership. I can't think of a more emblematic example of what is going on in the UK.
It's not as simple as "give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into". If you have 20K in your bank account and no property, you have to pay for your care. If you own 2 flats worth 1M each and have 10K in your bank account, you pay nothing. The so-called "dementia tax" would have make this situation fairer. Besides, they wouldn't have to release equity while alive, but the cost of care would be paid by the heirs upon selling or inheriting their parent's property.
Imagine a scenario where you have 20K in your bank account. You child inherits only 10K, because you had to pay for your care. Now imagine you have 2 flats and 10K in your bank account. Your child gets the whole lot. Does this look fair?
Theresa May, that, as far as I'm concerned, should be sent to the Hague for architecting the hostile environment for foreigners, had only one non-demented idea in her entire political career: making social care fairer, and that's what killed her premiership. I can't think of a more emblematic example of what is going on in the UK.
They already paid for NHS during their active period. Why should people have to pay again, once retired? If you request them to pay for healthcare, after they are retired, then you shouldn't ask them for money during their active period.
Because they paid £15k for their house in 1974 and it's gone up to £1.5 million through no special skill of their own. Their life expectancy has also increased 10 years in that time due to NHS advances so they will be living longer and costing much more than before to care for. The calculus as to what they own and what they owe has changed dramatically just during their life span.
Welcome to the beautiful world of empty, overconfident political promises that are smashed against the rocks of reality 30 years later.
This is why I plan to finance my own retirement and consider a minimum social security pension a happy bonus.
This is why I plan to finance my own retirement and consider a minimum social security pension a happy bonus.
This is obtuse; you're ignoring the observation that people with sufficient cash have to pay now, and the contrast with property owners. Sure, you may think it's unfair that anyone has to pay after having paid taxes, that's a legitimate opinion I happen to share. But just stating that and ignoring the rest of the GP post isn't helpful.
> Does this look fair?
No, but because we should end means testing completely. I thought NHS meant you didn't have to do all the things we have to do here in the US.
A few years ago, I had to do an annual wellness exam so I could keep my health insurance "discount" at work. There was some miscommunication within the three parties: 1. Doctor's office 2. Lab 3. Insurance and I had to act like a mediator between them. I thought that was bad enough but NHS sounds worse now.
No, but because we should end means testing completely. I thought NHS meant you didn't have to do all the things we have to do here in the US.
A few years ago, I had to do an annual wellness exam so I could keep my health insurance "discount" at work. There was some miscommunication within the three parties: 1. Doctor's office 2. Lab 3. Insurance and I had to act like a mediator between them. I thought that was bad enough but NHS sounds worse now.
The Conservative government that's been in power for 13 years has consistently underfunded the NHS. While the current vogue is to blame Covid, it's only been the final crack in a dam that's been bursting for years now.
[deleted]
It seems like maybe they didn’t pay in enough - baby boom demographics meant there were relatively more productive workers paying for relatively few old people, so each worker was paying a fraction of what it would cost to carry themselves through old age.
Also, not enough kids, and of those, not enough who wanted to go into medicine.
It seems like baby booms have a way of making things seem artificially good for a while, and then there’s a hangover.
Also, not enough kids, and of those, not enough who wanted to go into medicine.
It seems like baby booms have a way of making things seem artificially good for a while, and then there’s a hangover.
> It seems like maybe they didn’t pay in enough - baby boom demographics meant there were relatively more productive workers paying for relatively few old people, so each worker was paying a fraction of what it would cost to carry themselves through old age.
Right but manufacturing technology better and more efficient, we produce far more "per worker" now
Right but manufacturing technology better and more efficient, we produce far more "per worker" now
Yeah, but I don’t think we’ve seen commensurate gains with healthcare workers, except by perhaps reducing visit time per patient.
Perhaps the inference is that the owners of industrial technology should be paying more taxes on their profits, since the proportion of labor as an input is shrinking.
[deleted]
But getting people to pay twice for public services is a core way to increase tax revenue!
The core way that pushes this cost onto the working class.
It’s I my broken because our electoral system favours conservative outcomes. If we had proportional representation then many of the issues that seem impossible would suddenly become easy to solve.
Edit: in before anyone asks for evidence of favouring conservative outcomes: Boris Johnson had a landslide 80 seat majority with only 43.6% of the popular vote. PR would mean more coalition governments, but those would largely be left leaning Labour/Lib/SNP even when the conservatives have higher than historically average vote shares.
Edit: in before anyone asks for evidence of favouring conservative outcomes: Boris Johnson had a landslide 80 seat majority with only 43.6% of the popular vote. PR would mean more coalition governments, but those would largely be left leaning Labour/Lib/SNP even when the conservatives have higher than historically average vote shares.
So people are expected to pay twice for healthcare, just because they own a house?
No. At the moment it's people who don't own a property and have savings instead who "pay twice". People who couldn't get a mortgage to buy a house so saved instead are expected to pay more towards old age care than those who did get a mortgage to buy a house. The proposed policy change was to rebalance the current rules which greatly benefit property owners over involuntary renters of similar means, to make the rules fairer.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36489768
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36489768
>It’s even worse because there’s an adult social care crisis, a pension crisis, and in some areas a rundown NHS and school system. So all the incentives are towards not just home ownership but also additional buy-to-let ownership so that those with the means can afford private health care, dentistry, school fees for their kids/grandkids, inheritance for the kids who are priced out of the market, and retirement.
It's also about rapidly declining population and people not willing to work. The result of welfare state.
If you incentivize people to develop themselves, acquire skills and knowledge, work and make kids, then they will be able to afford housing, medical care and pensions.
It's also about rapidly declining population and people not willing to work. The result of welfare state.
If you incentivize people to develop themselves, acquire skills and knowledge, work and make kids, then they will be able to afford housing, medical care and pensions.
If there's a finite resource, you can't just say "if only the population worked harder, they'd have more money to spend so they can buy the thing we're discussing". Money is used as the tool to ration in our society, but it doesn't therefore mean that insufficient money is the problem behind rationing. This financializing of everything is the problem with too many analyses these days - fundamentally we need to think about provisioning before financing.
Working hard doesn't influence housing supply vs demand in real terms at all. In fact it makes it worse because all those hardworking people will demand higher quality housing in exchange for their sacrifice. So end up with more people being unhappy with their current housing, not less.
Hi, the Cradle to Grave Welfare state has existed since the 1940s.
Were people not willing to work in the 1940s?
Were people not willing to work in the 1940s?
There is a problem that the age demographic has changed.
There is the ever increasing problem of more people drawing down state pensions, using the NHS and social care, than there are young tax payers to support them.
There is the ever increasing problem of more people drawing down state pensions, using the NHS and social care, than there are young tax payers to support them.
How would you incentivize people to have children?
Make it seem to be profitable, obviously. France’s system is genius - supposedly, income can be shared between all household
members regardless of age.
So the marginal tax rate becomes very low if you have three kids. Even incentivizes one parent to work less.
So the marginal tax rate becomes very low if you have three kids. Even incentivizes one parent to work less.
> If you incentivize people to develop themselves, acquire skills and knowledge, work and make kids, then they will be able to afford housing, medical care and pensions.
I don’t know if this was sarcasm, but this is the sort of absurd nonsense spouted by conservatives who’ve already gotten “theirs”.
Home prices that are astronomically high relative to average wages means that most people can’t afford to buy a home no matter what they do (other than becoming millionaires).
I don’t know if this was sarcasm, but this is the sort of absurd nonsense spouted by conservatives who’ve already gotten “theirs”.
Home prices that are astronomically high relative to average wages means that most people can’t afford to buy a home no matter what they do (other than becoming millionaires).
Greed is exactly the right word. There is a flat unwillingness to acknowledge or reason from the fact by so many homeowners that they are sitting on giant, completely unearned windfalls. There’s a huge sense of entitlement around these inflated prices.
It is an unearned windfall, but people deserve to keep their homes. It bears noting that the issue is caused by property investors, not homeowners. How about we go for the individuals that own more than 3 properties and let grandma keep what she earned?
She may have earned the house to some degree (the article outlines a number of government subsidies which make this doubtful), but she definitely didn’t earn the land value increase.
I’m reminded of this quote:
> Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.
I’m reminded of this quote:
> Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.
Yup. I think a 90% tax on real estate capital gains would be the solution. That would also disincentivize housing speculators et al.
In addition, a 90% tax on real estate income (rental income minus costs like mortgage, interest, maintenance, property taxes, etc) would also disincentivize people who buy properties just to rent them out.
In addition, a 90% tax on real estate income (rental income minus costs like mortgage, interest, maintenance, property taxes, etc) would also disincentivize people who buy properties just to rent them out.
Grandma, living in the same house she’s lived in since 1972, collecting a fixed income pension cheque once a month, is not what I’d describe as a “rich person.”
Look instead to the people who own golf courses, sports stadiums, super yachts, private jets and the like.
Look instead to the people who own golf courses, sports stadiums, super yachts, private jets and the like.
Everyone knows all property is owned by grandma.
Yeah I have to agree- all that increase in value doesn’t mean anything unless she sells it, which she won’t do until she dies anyway.
> Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing.
They are risking. Land value can go up or it can go down. It just has been mostly going up (in real terms) in the past decades, but it's far from certainty. You can lose money by investing in real estate, just like in everything else.
They are risking. Land value can go up or it can go down. It just has been mostly going up (in real terms) in the past decades, but it's far from certainty. You can lose money by investing in real estate, just like in everything else.
Sure but most people just want to live in that house, not capitalize on it
Marx or Lenin couldn't have said it better. Marxists have a fetish with seizing private property and forcefully equalizing people in poverty.
The question isn’t: does grandma get to keep living in the home, there’s no one that’s against that.
The question is who, if anyone gets the million bucks, that she didn’t pay for or earn, when the house is sold.
The question is who, if anyone gets the million bucks, that she didn’t pay for or earn, when the house is sold.
This isn't true. Homeowners vote in favour of policies that benefit landlords as well. It will look like the landlord is conspiring against tenants but landlords hardly have any political representation compared to tenants.
[deleted]
The purpose of real estate development is to make real estate more valuable.
So if you have laws restricting that development you need to look further than just "real-estate investors don't want development."
Even ones not doing the development benefit financially - landlords love being able to raise the rents cause other people in the area built a bunch of new shit.
The better off - and therefore more politically-connected - you are as a homeowner, the more you care about "I don't want the wrong people living next to me" compared to "I need to maximize short-term property values." (And the long-term property values trends clearly shows that cities with more development, that more people want to move to, are where you find ROI.)
So if you have laws restricting that development you need to look further than just "real-estate investors don't want development."
Even ones not doing the development benefit financially - landlords love being able to raise the rents cause other people in the area built a bunch of new shit.
The better off - and therefore more politically-connected - you are as a homeowner, the more you care about "I don't want the wrong people living next to me" compared to "I need to maximize short-term property values." (And the long-term property values trends clearly shows that cities with more development, that more people want to move to, are where you find ROI.)
> The purpose of real estate development is to make real estate more valuable.
Nope. It's to make money for the developers.
> Even ones not doing the development benefit financially - landlords love being able to raise the rents cause other people in the area built a bunch of new shit.
Gentrification is a result of shortage. When wealthier people are priced out of rich neighborhoods, the only place for them to go is poor neighborhoods. It just so happens that poor neighborhoods with the least amount of political power are the first ones to be redeveloped when there's a shortage of housing.
> And the long-term property values trends clearly shows that cities with more development, that more people want to move to, are where you find ROI.
Reversed causation. It's literally just supply and demand. Places with high demand and not enough supply have growing property values. Places that are actually able to build housing to even kinda meet demand are doing much better.
You can see a ton of development but that doesn't really mean anything. Often there's not even enough development to meet the rate of growth in a given city, let alone reduce prices meaningfully.
Nope. It's to make money for the developers.
> Even ones not doing the development benefit financially - landlords love being able to raise the rents cause other people in the area built a bunch of new shit.
Gentrification is a result of shortage. When wealthier people are priced out of rich neighborhoods, the only place for them to go is poor neighborhoods. It just so happens that poor neighborhoods with the least amount of political power are the first ones to be redeveloped when there's a shortage of housing.
> And the long-term property values trends clearly shows that cities with more development, that more people want to move to, are where you find ROI.
Reversed causation. It's literally just supply and demand. Places with high demand and not enough supply have growing property values. Places that are actually able to build housing to even kinda meet demand are doing much better.
You can see a ton of development but that doesn't really mean anything. Often there's not even enough development to meet the rate of growth in a given city, let alone reduce prices meaningfully.
> Nope. It's to make money for the developers.
Sure.
Let's look a simple condo case: Developer pays X for property. Developer spends Y to build a building. Developer sells N units for Z. To make money, NZ has to be greater than XY aka the total value of that parcel is now higher.
> Reversed causation. It's literally just supply and demand. Places with high demand and not enough supply have growing property values. Places that are actually able to build housing to even kinda meet demand are doing much better.
Yeah, short-term, why was that parcel before the condo building worth less? Because there was less demand for what was there before than for what was there after it. Development increase short-term values by providing immediate units with nicer amenities or better condition or more size or whatever. Probably pretty uncontroversial.
But also development increases long-term values by continuing to grow long term demand. Development, residences, businesses, services - in the most successful cities, all that flow of money produces more and more demand and value over time. Not a lot of demand to live on an empty lot in the middle of nowhere where there's not a nice house and there's no nearby jobs...
So flip the causation: if there hadn't been development to allow all the people in [popular city of your choice] in the first place, it wouldn't be so popular and have such high demand today. That's not completely separate from geographical factors like rivers, but it's also got a lot to do with development - take, say, the land where a river meets a train line and compare it to the land downstream without the train.
Sure.
Let's look a simple condo case: Developer pays X for property. Developer spends Y to build a building. Developer sells N units for Z. To make money, NZ has to be greater than XY aka the total value of that parcel is now higher.
> Reversed causation. It's literally just supply and demand. Places with high demand and not enough supply have growing property values. Places that are actually able to build housing to even kinda meet demand are doing much better.
Yeah, short-term, why was that parcel before the condo building worth less? Because there was less demand for what was there before than for what was there after it. Development increase short-term values by providing immediate units with nicer amenities or better condition or more size or whatever. Probably pretty uncontroversial.
But also development increases long-term values by continuing to grow long term demand. Development, residences, businesses, services - in the most successful cities, all that flow of money produces more and more demand and value over time. Not a lot of demand to live on an empty lot in the middle of nowhere where there's not a nice house and there's no nearby jobs...
So flip the causation: if there hadn't been development to allow all the people in [popular city of your choice] in the first place, it wouldn't be so popular and have such high demand today. That's not completely separate from geographical factors like rivers, but it's also got a lot to do with development - take, say, the land where a river meets a train line and compare it to the land downstream without the train.
When you build new housing (as in, increase the number of units of housing that are available in total), you make your lot more valuable, which makes other lots less valuable. So a developer makes makes money by making their lot more valuable, but they do not "make real estate more valuable" generally.
This is much like, you know, every other thing in the world. When a shoe manufacturer makes shoes, their shoes have value, but the value of all other shoes are slightly less because there's now one more competitor for demand for all those other shoes.
This is much like, you know, every other thing in the world. When a shoe manufacturer makes shoes, their shoes have value, but the value of all other shoes are slightly less because there's now one more competitor for demand for all those other shoes.
With shoes, sure.
With housing, it depends. There can be a proximity effect. The old house next to all the nicely redeveloped new houses is now worth more, even if the total number of bedrooms hasn't changed during the redevelopment, because it is in a nicer environment (and a buyer might want to redevelop the old house, and live in a nice house in a nice suburb).
With housing, it depends. There can be a proximity effect. The old house next to all the nicely redeveloped new houses is now worth more, even if the total number of bedrooms hasn't changed during the redevelopment, because it is in a nicer environment (and a buyer might want to redevelop the old house, and live in a nice house in a nice suburb).
That's been repeatedly empirically shown not to be true. New housing depresses the price of existing housing (very slightly), even hyper-locally.
That's purely short term.
Long term development is good for everybody's property values, in the exact opposite way that losing businesses and residents is bad for those property values. Phoenix vs Detroit, say.
"Demand" is a dynamic thing, it responds to changes in the built environment of a city, region, or nation. London didn't spring into being fully-formed and fully in-demand at today's levels. It found a virtuous (for property-owners financially) cycle of both increasing housing units and increasing population and demand for certain areas.
Long term development is good for everybody's property values, in the exact opposite way that losing businesses and residents is bad for those property values. Phoenix vs Detroit, say.
"Demand" is a dynamic thing, it responds to changes in the built environment of a city, region, or nation. London didn't spring into being fully-formed and fully in-demand at today's levels. It found a virtuous (for property-owners financially) cycle of both increasing housing units and increasing population and demand for certain areas.
There are in-demand cities that have relatively affordable housing (like Tokyo), that allow lots of housing to be built, and cities that have extraordinarily high costs of housing (like London) generally have a hard cap on housing development.
While there is obviously some amount of this whole thing where more housing allows more people to come to a city which can in some circumstances drum up more jobs or whatever, I think it's a significant oversimplification to say that more housing increases property values in the long run. Ceteris paribus, more housing depresses property values. It is possible for there to be a feedback cycle where more people in the area increase the overall prosperity -- and thus property values -- of the area, but I do not think that generally more housing is the most important factor there.
While there is obviously some amount of this whole thing where more housing allows more people to come to a city which can in some circumstances drum up more jobs or whatever, I think it's a significant oversimplification to say that more housing increases property values in the long run. Ceteris paribus, more housing depresses property values. It is possible for there to be a feedback cycle where more people in the area increase the overall prosperity -- and thus property values -- of the area, but I do not think that generally more housing is the most important factor there.
The thing is that large developers love restricting development because it limits competition.
If there is only a limited supply of land to build further on, it is much easier to corner said market of land and sit on it if the prices are not high enough for your liking. The cheapest development is the kind that larger developers do not bother with (one house to two or three on a single plot of land, rather than large complexes)
If there is only a limited supply of land to build further on, it is much easier to corner said market of land and sit on it if the prices are not high enough for your liking. The cheapest development is the kind that larger developers do not bother with (one house to two or three on a single plot of land, rather than large complexes)
This is not the case in SF. Developers want to build, but entrenched interests fight and delay, often using the rhetoric that doing so only makes developers richer and the only reason developers want to develop is so the developers themselves make money (as if this is some kind of purity test of intent).
As much as I hate giving NIMBYs any credit, it's important to remember that developers don't want to lower the price of housing - they want to make money, but the higher the cost of housing the more profit they make.
For instance, suppose they build 100 apartments in the suburb of X. They know that for every $1k the price of housing in X drops, they lose $100k. So weirdly, they tend to leave housing vacant and sell it at a drip-feed so that they're always selling less houses than there are buyers - there is a huge difference between selling 3 apartments to 4 buyers, vs selling 4 apartments to 4 buyers. This particularly bad when there are few, large developers instead of lots of small developers, as the few large developers can collude to price-fix much easier.
Please don't interpret this as contradicting the fact that California needs to massively overhaul its zoning/construction permit system - the fact that it can take years to receive permission instead of weeks is a big reason for the price of housing (and raises capex requirements which results in fewer but larger developers, see previous paragraph). Ditto for all the zoning that mandates exclusively single-family homes, and other such pointless exclusionism.
For instance, suppose they build 100 apartments in the suburb of X. They know that for every $1k the price of housing in X drops, they lose $100k. So weirdly, they tend to leave housing vacant and sell it at a drip-feed so that they're always selling less houses than there are buyers - there is a huge difference between selling 3 apartments to 4 buyers, vs selling 4 apartments to 4 buyers. This particularly bad when there are few, large developers instead of lots of small developers, as the few large developers can collude to price-fix much easier.
Please don't interpret this as contradicting the fact that California needs to massively overhaul its zoning/construction permit system - the fact that it can take years to receive permission instead of weeks is a big reason for the price of housing (and raises capex requirements which results in fewer but larger developers, see previous paragraph). Ditto for all the zoning that mandates exclusively single-family homes, and other such pointless exclusionism.
Yeah, developers acting in their own interests isn't going to magically fix everything - there's no shortage of examples of how "chart goes up forever" thinking leads to nasty externalities and tends to run into a brick wall at some point, and how manipulative the big players in the real-estate market can be.
But painting NIMBYism in such reductionist (and long-term economic-investment backward) as "development would make real estate investors and developers lose money" would just result in people fighting entirely the wrong battles with entirely the wrong message to actually have a chance at changing things in a useful way.
But painting NIMBYism in such reductionist (and long-term economic-investment backward) as "development would make real estate investors and developers lose money" would just result in people fighting entirely the wrong battles with entirely the wrong message to actually have a chance at changing things in a useful way.
SF is not the only place with a housing crisis. In fact I would say SF is a pretty extreme case.
Seattle and NYC are both examples of places that funnel all development into a select few areas where the market for land is cornered.
Seattle and NYC are both examples of places that funnel all development into a select few areas where the market for land is cornered.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> the more you care about "I don't want the wrong people living next to me"
Then, by some modern definition, you are a nazi and a bigot.
Then, by some modern definition, you are a nazi and a bigot.
That’s also the set castigating young people who want to live in expensive cities. Prudence dictates you must live far far away. Why are you even thinking of living in New York City, you fool?! Why live in a cesspool like you goof!! It’s become a culture war, too.
It's basically The Wire in the making here in the UK. In 10-20 years, if not now already, we are going to have full blown ghettos I'm sure. Whereas 10 years ago I felt safe in most parts of London.
Crime has noticeably gone up and I'm sure it's just going to get worse as gangs increase. Even in safe areas, muggings and knife violence are on the rise.
My children went to a really terrible comprehensive which I had to move them out of. The kind of stuff going on there is just making the next generation of criminals possible. And it's not the school's fault - they just don't have the resources to manage with bulge classes and staff stretched to the mental breaking limit.
It's an utter shambles the state of this country. Without strong leadership it's not changing either - we need an Obama or similar charismatic leader with progressive (or hell, even moderate) ideas at this point to make some change.
One thing this country has going for it over the US is that governments have a mandate to make large changes. In the US, nothing can ever change because of gridlock in congress with filibusters. So we still have some hope here, although lack of proportional representation makes it very difficult to get proper representation.
Crime has noticeably gone up and I'm sure it's just going to get worse as gangs increase. Even in safe areas, muggings and knife violence are on the rise.
My children went to a really terrible comprehensive which I had to move them out of. The kind of stuff going on there is just making the next generation of criminals possible. And it's not the school's fault - they just don't have the resources to manage with bulge classes and staff stretched to the mental breaking limit.
It's an utter shambles the state of this country. Without strong leadership it's not changing either - we need an Obama or similar charismatic leader with progressive (or hell, even moderate) ideas at this point to make some change.
One thing this country has going for it over the US is that governments have a mandate to make large changes. In the US, nothing can ever change because of gridlock in congress with filibusters. So we still have some hope here, although lack of proportional representation makes it very difficult to get proper representation.
> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners.
This is just a self-defeating excuse. "Monopolised" implies that they're somehow preventing younger people from voting. The only way in which this is a thing is by scheduling elections on days that are inconvenient for younger people to vote.
If you want change in who represents you, the first thing you need to do is vote. The second thing is to get others to vote.
This is just a self-defeating excuse. "Monopolised" implies that they're somehow preventing younger people from voting. The only way in which this is a thing is by scheduling elections on days that are inconvenient for younger people to vote.
If you want change in who represents you, the first thing you need to do is vote. The second thing is to get others to vote.
While true, check out this demographic map for the US: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...). The majority of people are over the age of 30, and most of them live in owner-occupied homes. In fact, 66% of all Americans live in owner-occupied homes. I imagine these statistics look similar or even worse in the UK.
There is a real demographic advantage for the elderly, and those who own homes, even if we ignore the propensity for young people to fail to vote.
There is a real demographic advantage for the elderly, and those who own homes, even if we ignore the propensity for young people to fail to vote.
now compare how many people are in age of 18-35 vs 35-90
> 3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners.
This, in my opinion, is the biggest factor compared to the other two. Politicians that want to win power have to win votes. Older people (and homeowners) vote more than younger (renting) people. A party that prioritises younger people over older people will be referred to as His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.
The reason Liz Truss was kicked out of the PM's office by her party wasn't because her spending plans were economically illiterate. It's because her plans started rapidly increasing interest rates, so higher mortgages, which is starting the process of fucking over Tory voters.
This, in my opinion, is the biggest factor compared to the other two. Politicians that want to win power have to win votes. Older people (and homeowners) vote more than younger (renting) people. A party that prioritises younger people over older people will be referred to as His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.
The reason Liz Truss was kicked out of the PM's office by her party wasn't because her spending plans were economically illiterate. It's because her plans started rapidly increasing interest rates, so higher mortgages, which is starting the process of fucking over Tory voters.
Migration to bigger tier one cities is partly to blame. Many young people want to live in NY and rent a shoebox flat for life. They think that they can become Friends protagonists when in fact they become broke and blame government.
Big cities are not created because of dreams of "Friends", but because they have lots of jobs. That's why NYC is still attracting people. If it had zero jobs, it would go broke in less than a year, no matter how many TV shows are shot over there.
Or at least in North America, younger people don't want to live in soulless suburbs where there's literally nothing to do apart from visiting the same big box stores, chain restaurants and bars in exactly same looking plaza.
Until they get married/have kids and do the same thing their parents and their parent's parents did...move to the suburbs.
One difference with "younger" kids now is they're getting married later...but once you have kids the suburbs look completely different and it's been that way for as long as there have been suburbs.
One difference with "younger" kids now is they're getting married later...but once you have kids the suburbs look completely different and it's been that way for as long as there have been suburbs.
This often comes up, and I'm genuinely curious, is space really that much more important when it comes to kids? I grew up in an apartment sharing a bedroom with my sister, and tons and tons of kids grow up in an apartment all over the world; all the older European cities, Asian cities (Mumbai, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc).
Netherlands has the happiest kids in the world, where in Amsterdam a lot of kids would be growing up in an apartment. The flip side is, they get their freedom where they can go to places without needing their parents to drive them everywhere.
Netherlands has the happiest kids in the world, where in Amsterdam a lot of kids would be growing up in an apartment. The flip side is, they get their freedom where they can go to places without needing their parents to drive them everywhere.
The U.S. doesn’t generally build a lot of multi-bedroom apartments suitable for families. The emphasis is on single bedrooms and studios.
Furthermore, people also prefer the suburbs for raising a family because that’s where all the nice schools are built. For better or worse, inner city schools are avoided like the plague for parents with the means to buy a house in the suburbs.
Furthermore, people also prefer the suburbs for raising a family because that’s where all the nice schools are built. For better or worse, inner city schools are avoided like the plague for parents with the means to buy a house in the suburbs.
In the States that seems to be the case. I surmise that's due to our strong sense of individualism in our culture. Hard to see whether prosperity causes individualism or the other way around.
Define prosperity though. If it's strictly financial prosperity, then sure. But various studies have found people in western countries to be lonelier and less happier than their asian/european/south american counterparts where sense of community is higher.
> Until they get married/have kids and do the same thing their parents and their parent's parents did...move to the suburbs.
My parents moved to the city when they had kids. Specifically to enable a better life for us. More access to friends, better schools, more independence, better extracurriculars, more family time because no commute, etc. It was pretty great.
Living in the city also made college affordable because we could just live at home and walk to school.
My parents moved to the city when they had kids. Specifically to enable a better life for us. More access to friends, better schools, more independence, better extracurriculars, more family time because no commute, etc. It was pretty great.
Living in the city also made college affordable because we could just live at home and walk to school.
I do notnthink suburbs are better for kids or parents. They can't go anywhere unless being driven, so they are either stuck at home or parent have to drive then around. There are less other kids to play with, kids are limited to backyard. Same for after school activities, much less is going on.
Unless you are talking about literal toddler, it is nit that awesome.
Unless you are talking about literal toddler, it is nit that awesome.
But how much time you have to spend in traffic each day?
Possibly none because WFH is a thing.
There's lots to do outside big city centres if your life doesn't evolve around consumiption of services provided by others. Big cities suck for most physical and creative outdoor activities.
Real estate isn't immune to the law of supply and demand, which mandate that you can only pick at most two out of size (or quality) of the housing unit, location (and the quality thereof), and price. Most places in the US are either affordable and boring or the other way around.
> soulless suburbs where there's literally nothing
This is a bit of a reductionist take on those younger people's part. You can have just as much fun at the TGI Friday's at your local strip mall as you can at the hippest restaurant no one else has ever heard of in Brooklyn. It's just a matter of who you spend that time with, and how you perceive that time, in the Stoic tradition.
> soulless suburbs where there's literally nothing
This is a bit of a reductionist take on those younger people's part. You can have just as much fun at the TGI Friday's at your local strip mall as you can at the hippest restaurant no one else has ever heard of in Brooklyn. It's just a matter of who you spend that time with, and how you perceive that time, in the Stoic tradition.
Let me offer a counterpoint: I live in LA because it is home to the largest immigrant population in the US from the country where my parents were born. When I go to the grocery store, restaurants, concerts, festivals, etc. I am experiencing that cultural connection.
There’s numerous spaces I’ve been in where English is rarely spoken and it gives me the opportunity to maintain my language skills.
Do you think I could have that in generic suburbia?
There’s numerous spaces I’ve been in where English is rarely spoken and it gives me the opportunity to maintain my language skills.
Do you think I could have that in generic suburbia?
[deleted]
I'm an immigrant myself, having moved around the US quite a bit and currently living in a part where there aren't very many people from my country of origin. I've never once considered proximity to a large community of people sharing my ethnic background as important in choosing where to live, but of course YMMV.
It's funny because I've always thought of LA as a conglomeration of suburbia, but perhaps you're referring to "generic suburbia" as one that's composed primarily of typical white Americans? Then naturally by definition you're not going to have the same kind of access to whichever cultural group that is missing from that town. But I disagree that those kinds of places are entirely devoid of "soul", as the GP put it. It'd be like criticizing Los Angeles (plurality Hispanic, approximately 0% Danish[0]), for not having Danish festivals and grocery stores, or Jackson, MS (roughly 80% black and less than half a percent Asian[1]) for not having enough authentic Asian restaurants.
Sure, there's an argument to be made that you can find representation of anything in a big enough city, and that holds in places like NYC or LA. But that's a truism.
[0]: https://www.statimetric.com/us-ethnicity/Danish
[1]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/jacksoncitymiss...
It's funny because I've always thought of LA as a conglomeration of suburbia, but perhaps you're referring to "generic suburbia" as one that's composed primarily of typical white Americans? Then naturally by definition you're not going to have the same kind of access to whichever cultural group that is missing from that town. But I disagree that those kinds of places are entirely devoid of "soul", as the GP put it. It'd be like criticizing Los Angeles (plurality Hispanic, approximately 0% Danish[0]), for not having Danish festivals and grocery stores, or Jackson, MS (roughly 80% black and less than half a percent Asian[1]) for not having enough authentic Asian restaurants.
Sure, there's an argument to be made that you can find representation of anything in a big enough city, and that holds in places like NYC or LA. But that's a truism.
[0]: https://www.statimetric.com/us-ethnicity/Danish
[1]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/jacksoncitymiss...
LA is not Manhattan but it’s not a generic sunbelt city either. It’s comprised of dozens of neighborhoods and cities many of which are dense by any American standard (10000+ people/sq mi). A number of neighborhoods that were previously oriented around the yellow and red cars still have walkable “main streets” (albeit each of these main streets are individually difficult to reach without a car).
But that’s kind of beside the point. What I’m pushing back on is the notion that you can live anywhere in the US and it’s just as good as anywhere else so you might as well live wherever it’s cheapest.
It’s not about suburbs per se since Orange County is as suburban as it gets and also checks some of the boxes I mentioned (although I’d argue not as many as LA). It is also extremely expensive.
I don’t care for the “soul” argument since it’s vague. I just specified something that is personally important to me and justifies living in an very high COL city.
But that’s kind of beside the point. What I’m pushing back on is the notion that you can live anywhere in the US and it’s just as good as anywhere else so you might as well live wherever it’s cheapest.
It’s not about suburbs per se since Orange County is as suburban as it gets and also checks some of the boxes I mentioned (although I’d argue not as many as LA). It is also extremely expensive.
I don’t care for the “soul” argument since it’s vague. I just specified something that is personally important to me and justifies living in an very high COL city.
… You can have just as much fun at the TGI Friday's at your local strip mall as you can at the hippest restaurant…
Have you actually eaten at a TGIFridays? The food is awful. I suppose if the actual meal is completely secondary to your enjoyment of the experience, you might be right, but for me, eating out is as much for the food as the company.
Have you actually eaten at a TGIFridays? The food is awful. I suppose if the actual meal is completely secondary to your enjoyment of the experience, you might be right, but for me, eating out is as much for the food as the company.
In my early 20s I used to sit at the bar at TGIFridays 3-4 nights a week and play trivia with my girlfriend (now wife) and other friends. It was less than a 10 minute walk from our suburban condo and across the street from our work so we would have lots of coworkers stop in and hang out. I’d usually eat some of their shitty wings and fries but the experience was definitely hanging out, drinking, and playing trivia. I’d imagine this type of experience is common whether you live in suburbia or NYC.
In a city, that 10 minute walk encompasses several bars and restaurants. Competition increases quality or decreases price.
Most places in the US are either affordable and boring or the other way around.
> You can have just as much fun at the TGI Friday's at your local strip mall as you can at the hippest restaurant no one else has ever heard of in Brooklyn. It's just a matter of who you spend that time with, and how you perceive that time, in the Stoic tradition.
There is something fundamentally different about the cultural life in cities. The suburbs are actually "soulless" in comparison.
https://www.iwritewordsgood.com/apl/patterns/apl010.htm
Worth pointing out that every Stoic I can think of was an upper-class city-dweller. Epicurus—Athens. Marcus Aurelius—Rome. Zeno of Citium—Athens again, but perhaps apocryphal. Seneca, Cicero, Epictetus—Rome again [0].
[0] I'm reminded now that Epictetus was not particularly wealthy, and did live an ascetic lifestyle. Perhaps the exception that makes the rule.
There is something fundamentally different about the cultural life in cities. The suburbs are actually "soulless" in comparison.
https://www.iwritewordsgood.com/apl/patterns/apl010.htm
Worth pointing out that every Stoic I can think of was an upper-class city-dweller. Epicurus—Athens. Marcus Aurelius—Rome. Zeno of Citium—Athens again, but perhaps apocryphal. Seneca, Cicero, Epictetus—Rome again [0].
[0] I'm reminded now that Epictetus was not particularly wealthy, and did live an ascetic lifestyle. Perhaps the exception that makes the rule.
> You can have just as much fun at the TGI Friday's at your local strip mall as you can at the hippest restaurant no one else has ever heard of in Brooklyn. It's just a matter of who you spend that time with, and how you perceive that time, in the Stoic tradition.
It's not just about restaurants. I'm not going to be able to go to concerts or events. There will be no specialized stores. Even in the example you gave, many of these chains are absolutely terrible now. Going to a local place means better food. It's not all pretense.
As the saying goes: It's hard to have fun with dogshit in your mouth.
It's not just about restaurants. I'm not going to be able to go to concerts or events. There will be no specialized stores. Even in the example you gave, many of these chains are absolutely terrible now. Going to a local place means better food. It's not all pretense.
As the saying goes: It's hard to have fun with dogshit in your mouth.
How often do people actually go to concerts or events? Why do I need specialized stores if I have the internet? Eating out is expensive and generally not good for you, calorie-wise.
Cities are fun, but people fail to realize that rural places are also pretty great. You just need to make your own fun, but you actually have the room (and money) to do so. I can go out in my yard and do archery, target shooting, etc. I live surrounded by woods and can go for a walk or just sit in there whenever I want...mosquitoes permitting. My house has room for any new hobby I want.
I will say that suburbs are probably the worst of both worlds, but I suppose you're closer to those concerts and better restaurants if you want.
Cities are fun, but people fail to realize that rural places are also pretty great. You just need to make your own fun, but you actually have the room (and money) to do so. I can go out in my yard and do archery, target shooting, etc. I live surrounded by woods and can go for a walk or just sit in there whenever I want...mosquitoes permitting. My house has room for any new hobby I want.
I will say that suburbs are probably the worst of both worlds, but I suppose you're closer to those concerts and better restaurants if you want.
Some people have little interest in those things. You've also really only listed solitary activities. Sure you can do some of these things "with people", but it's a far cry from more social activities.
To answer your first question: a lot. There's people that are very different from you, that really don't do well without these interactions. They expect to go out 1-3 times a week or at least monthly. Small area community events can be awkward if you aren't from town, don't know everyone, who all grew up together.
Yeah, you're buddy might come over now and then for target practice. However this is very different from social events city dwellers rely on.
To answer your first question: a lot. There's people that are very different from you, that really don't do well without these interactions. They expect to go out 1-3 times a week or at least monthly. Small area community events can be awkward if you aren't from town, don't know everyone, who all grew up together.
Yeah, you're buddy might come over now and then for target practice. However this is very different from social events city dwellers rely on.
That's true, but I'd argue those that go out monthly could easily live an hour or two from the city.
Don't get me wrong - if I were still single I'd probably move to a city, if only for the dating prospects. Once you have a family though and limited free time the pros and cons change a bit.
Don't get me wrong - if I were still single I'd probably move to a city, if only for the dating prospects. Once you have a family though and limited free time the pros and cons change a bit.
>suburbs are probably the worst of both worlds
hit the nail on the head right there.
hit the nail on the head right there.
And what if you are not rich and you can't work for home? Would you spend hours per day commuting? That translates in loosing some years from your life.
classic hackernews shut-in that doesnt understand that people enjoy culture, i go to a concert/show at least once a month and they are the best things i spend my money on.
How does suburbia stop anyone from going to concerts? I live in a very suburban area and go to shows about once a month too. Sometimes those shows are downtown and sometimes they are in the burbs (sometimes the even further burbs).
Yeah, and depending on location, you might not even be that much further from the happening spots. In city it's like 20 min for me, vs. previously 30-40 minutes; sure it's both ways, but this isn't that crazy.
Also you have more people and diversity. If you hate your neighbor there's plenty of others. In a smaller society, if you don't get along with ~3-5 people your fucked.
Also you have more people and diversity. If you hate your neighbor there's plenty of others. In a smaller society, if you don't get along with ~3-5 people your fucked.
Once a month is so infrequent that you can afford to, you know, just drive there. Nobody is saying live in the boonies 4 hours from civilization.
That's fine and dandy, but most people probably don't approach anywhere near that regularity. I enjoy culture just fine, but I'm a busy father and I also enjoy my hobbies.
All I'm saying is that most people that act like rural areas have "nothing to do" probably don't do all that much regularly anyways - and there are simply different things to do. We live 5 minutes from a state park with great hiking and have two public beaches within 5 minutes as well.
All I'm saying is that most people that act like rural areas have "nothing to do" probably don't do all that much regularly anyways - and there are simply different things to do. We live 5 minutes from a state park with great hiking and have two public beaches within 5 minutes as well.
Yeah, OP is hilariously myopic. Lots of people would jump off a cliff during one of those walks if they had to live like that.
I live in a suburb of a B-tier (at best) city, and have been to half a dozen concerts this year and at least two more coming up. Including several in objectively A-tier cities.
The idea that if you live in a suburb you can no longer go to concerts or events or "specialized stores" whatever that means, is just ridiculous.
The idea that if you live in a suburb you can no longer go to concerts or events or "specialized stores" whatever that means, is just ridiculous.
> "specialized stores" whatever that means
I coined the phrase, and am now not so sure myself. It doesn't really need to be that special, either. If you live in a small area you'll have eg. 1-5 stores.
There will be a big box supermarket, a local one, and maybe some other wildcard option. Then there will be a couple local stores (hardware, outdoors, etc.). However, if you want anything specific or just don't like the shop, you have to go to a different city.
I don't know if you've lived in a small town, but this would include things like electronic. With no Best Buy or Circuit City, you were stuck with Walmart, or a local shop for almost twice the price.
I coined the phrase, and am now not so sure myself. It doesn't really need to be that special, either. If you live in a small area you'll have eg. 1-5 stores.
There will be a big box supermarket, a local one, and maybe some other wildcard option. Then there will be a couple local stores (hardware, outdoors, etc.). However, if you want anything specific or just don't like the shop, you have to go to a different city.
I don't know if you've lived in a small town, but this would include things like electronic. With no Best Buy or Circuit City, you were stuck with Walmart, or a local shop for almost twice the price.
It's true that fun and interesting cities would still command some kind of premium under more liberal permitting regimes, but that's not an excuse to be amplifying it artificially with policy.
> This is a bit of a reductionist take on those younger people's part. You can have just as much fun at the TGI Friday's at your local strip mall as you can at the hippest restaurant no one else has ever heard of in Brooklyn.
I'm one of those younger people. The main difference here is, "the hip" restaurant in Brooklyn will have vastly different food than a hip restaurant in SF. Can't say that about TGIFs
I'm one of those younger people. The main difference here is, "the hip" restaurant in Brooklyn will have vastly different food than a hip restaurant in SF. Can't say that about TGIFs
I haven't noticed that there is "vastly different food" in SF vs Brooklyn. TGIF has bad food, but that's a different question.
> Many young people want to live in NY and rent a shoebox flat for life.
Nobody wants to rent a shoebox apartment in NYC for the rest of their life. But if you're not rich your only choices are to rent the shoebox or to leave NYC, and people choose which one matters more to them.
Nobody wants to rent a shoebox apartment in NYC for the rest of their life. But if you're not rich your only choices are to rent the shoebox or to leave NYC, and people choose which one matters more to them.
And if not already rich in NYC then you're probably there because you're trying to become rich.
Do you think all 8+ million residents of NYC are trying to get rich? It’s not all investment bankers and engineers.
I grew up in NYC, when big parts of it were still affordable. That was a time when people migrated there without assuming an impoverished lifestyle and locals didn’t get priced out. It breaks my heart that we now accept that big cities are for the rich or the masochistic. There was a lot of magic in my childhood, that will now become a thing of the past, unfortunately.
You should read about Vienna, which is a relatively large city that’s bucking the trend.
You should read about Vienna, which is a relatively large city that’s bucking the trend.
No, people move to cities because of jobs and because the countryside is dying. No need for weird theories about Friends.
Or, it's where their job is, which requires them to come into the office on some sort of basis.
At least where I live, the difference in wages between big cities and even tier-2 cities is night and day.
And forget wages, sticking around in small cities is often career suicide. As a young person, you can’t be blamed for wanting McKinsey in NYC on your resume instead of Acme Hardware Store in random town, Idaho.
And forget wages, sticking around in small cities is often career suicide. As a young person, you can’t be blamed for wanting McKinsey in NYC on your resume instead of Acme Hardware Store in random town, Idaho.
Mck pays the same in all cities in NA :)
> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners...the entire system is rigged
Homeowners, irrespective of age, vote more. This is in part enabled by material comforts. But there may be other layers of causation.
The first two are problematic per se (though I'm uncertain of the effect size). But the last is fundamental--if someone can vote but can't care to, they're not going to have their interests represented.
Homeowners, irrespective of age, vote more. This is in part enabled by material comforts. But there may be other layers of causation.
The first two are problematic per se (though I'm uncertain of the effect size). But the last is fundamental--if someone can vote but can't care to, they're not going to have their interests represented.
Countries like Australia have compulsory voting and are still suffering the same issues. You are right - there are other layers of causation.
We even have preferential voting. The problem is nearly two-thirds of MPs - out of 144 of them - own more than one property. Which is more than three times the national average: less than 20 per cent of Australians own more than one property.
Even the so-called "left leaning" party are landlords.
We are run by the landed gentry. They'll continue looking out for their own. Houses are the safest asset as they're practically 100% Government backed.
Even the so-called "left leaning" party are landlords.
We are run by the landed gentry. They'll continue looking out for their own. Houses are the safest asset as they're practically 100% Government backed.
The real question is, if you are profiting from this system: How can you stop people from caring, or alternatively how can you make them vote against their interest?
This is ofc a rhetorical question as you can see the answers play out very clearly in nearly every conservative party in the world (and much more subtle and convoluted in the parties left of them).
This is ofc a rhetorical question as you can see the answers play out very clearly in nearly every conservative party in the world (and much more subtle and convoluted in the parties left of them).
> How can you stop people from caring, or alternatively how can you make them vote against their interest?
Voting against their interests: nothing. That said, I've often found folks deemed to be voting against their interests to be doing nothing of the sort.
Those who don't care are, for me, also fine. They're self selecting out of having a voice. If they want to have one in the future, they can engage. The tragedy is those who want to engage but can't. Due to registration requirements, ersatz poll taxes, difficulty of getting to and from poll sites or keeping tabs on the election calendar.
(Apathy is unlikely to be solved with reforms versus education. I've never met an apathetic voter who cast a blank ballot in protest. If they show up, they tend to find something to vote on.)
Voting against their interests: nothing. That said, I've often found folks deemed to be voting against their interests to be doing nothing of the sort.
Those who don't care are, for me, also fine. They're self selecting out of having a voice. If they want to have one in the future, they can engage. The tragedy is those who want to engage but can't. Due to registration requirements, ersatz poll taxes, difficulty of getting to and from poll sites or keeping tabs on the election calendar.
(Apathy is unlikely to be solved with reforms versus education. I've never met an apathetic voter who cast a blank ballot in protest. If they show up, they tend to find something to vote on.)
> The tragedy is those who want to engage but can't. Due to registration requirements, ersatz poll taxes, difficulty of getting to and from poll sites or keeping tabs on the election calendar.
I hear about this every now and then, but is it an issue in any real number? Maybe the problem of the "difficulty of getting to and from poll sites", which I can see arising due to the nature of this country being large, spread out, and automobile-centric.
Even Georgia, which was recently under fire for so-called voter restriction laws, hands out voter ID cards for free or a non-driver state ID card for under $40 that lasts nearly a decade. I can only imagine that anyone who is unable to obtain one of those has much bigger problems than voting every few years.
I hear about this every now and then, but is it an issue in any real number? Maybe the problem of the "difficulty of getting to and from poll sites", which I can see arising due to the nature of this country being large, spread out, and automobile-centric.
Even Georgia, which was recently under fire for so-called voter restriction laws, hands out voter ID cards for free or a non-driver state ID card for under $40 that lasts nearly a decade. I can only imagine that anyone who is unable to obtain one of those has much bigger problems than voting every few years.
So things depend on the state, but IIRC some states have been way more brazen about others.
For example, at one point a proposal was floated to force changes in Texas polling center distribution, but only in counties with over a million people, which was pretty nakedly partisan. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling...
For example, at one point a proposal was floated to force changes in Texas polling center distribution, but only in counties with over a million people, which was pretty nakedly partisan. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling...
Abbott, Paxton, and Patrick are the 3 horsemen of the "woke" apocalypse. They will do anything to prevent anyone who isn't an old, white, Xtian (those who profess to believe in Christ but do not follow his teachings) from voting, especially in Harris County.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/01/harris-county-electi...
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/01/harris-county-electi...
> Maybe the problem of the "difficulty of getting to and from poll sites", which I can see arising due to the nature of this country being large, spread out, and automobile-centric.
It's not just distance and cost, but time. Someone working 3 jobs simply doesn't have time to stand in line for hours.
It's not just distance and cost, but time. Someone working 3 jobs simply doesn't have time to stand in line for hours.
Nobody has time to stand in line for hours to vote. Not even retired people would do that!
> Someone working 3 jobs
According to the BLS[0], less than 5% of working-aged people hold more than one job, and presumably a fraction of that have three jobs. Surely society shouldn't optimize for a small minority of the population.
> doesn't have time to stand in line for hours
Data on this isn't great, but one source I found[1] puts a cursory total average across all states in 2020 at around 15 minutes, with the worst average wait time being Indiana at 42.1 minutes. It's confirmed by a 2020 academic paper[2] which puts the nationwide median at 14 minutes.
I can imagine that there are outliers who have to wait unpleasantly long, and that same paper referenced above indicates that people may have unequal voting wait times based on where they live. Ideally voting should be easy for all those eligible to vote.
[0]: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat36.htm
[1]: https://www.lgbtmap.org/img/maps/citations-polling-place-lin...
[2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf
> Someone working 3 jobs
According to the BLS[0], less than 5% of working-aged people hold more than one job, and presumably a fraction of that have three jobs. Surely society shouldn't optimize for a small minority of the population.
> doesn't have time to stand in line for hours
Data on this isn't great, but one source I found[1] puts a cursory total average across all states in 2020 at around 15 minutes, with the worst average wait time being Indiana at 42.1 minutes. It's confirmed by a 2020 academic paper[2] which puts the nationwide median at 14 minutes.
I can imagine that there are outliers who have to wait unpleasantly long, and that same paper referenced above indicates that people may have unequal voting wait times based on where they live. Ideally voting should be easy for all those eligible to vote.
[0]: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat36.htm
[1]: https://www.lgbtmap.org/img/maps/citations-polling-place-lin...
[2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf
> But there may be other layers of causation.
Having a permanent, of sorts, attachment to a location incentivizes people to vote to protect their interests in that location.
Having a permanent, of sorts, attachment to a location incentivizes people to vote to protect their interests in that location.
"Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners".
Sounds like democracy?
Sounds like democracy?
> Sounds like democracy?
Here is an example -
16 year olds who have a keen interest in their futute, are not allowed to vote.
A 90 year old, who does not even remember that USSR has already collapsed, votes for a war-Mongering government.
18 year olds are drafted into the army and sent to fight a war, and they never had a chance to vote at all. Maybe their entire experience of democracy is getting sent to faraway land to die.
Their experience is indistinguishable from tyrany
Here is an example -
16 year olds who have a keen interest in their futute, are not allowed to vote.
A 90 year old, who does not even remember that USSR has already collapsed, votes for a war-Mongering government.
18 year olds are drafted into the army and sent to fight a war, and they never had a chance to vote at all. Maybe their entire experience of democracy is getting sent to faraway land to die.
Their experience is indistinguishable from tyrany
The last time the United States had a draft was 1973. The last time the UK had a draft was 1960. Who is the 18 year old who is drafted into the army and sent to fight a war and getting sent to a faraway land to die? I mean. Russians, for at least some value of faraway. But I don't think they're the central example that you're thinking of.
That's 50 years ago. It's literally not even one lifetime ago.
Given that you'd have to be 18 to be drafted (maybe 16), the minimum age of those people would be 68.
> "Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners".
> Sounds like democracy?
Young people might get their first chance to vote at age 23 - assuming they paid for the right kind of ID, or navigated an impenetrable web of underpaid bureaucrats to get the mythical free ID. And if they manage to get off work on election day. Meanwhile the elderly are reliably on the register (because they're not being forced to move around, because again they own a home) and encouraged to vote even if they're expected to die before the results take effect.
> Sounds like democracy?
Young people might get their first chance to vote at age 23 - assuming they paid for the right kind of ID, or navigated an impenetrable web of underpaid bureaucrats to get the mythical free ID. And if they manage to get off work on election day. Meanwhile the elderly are reliably on the register (because they're not being forced to move around, because again they own a home) and encouraged to vote even if they're expected to die before the results take effect.
California is one of the worst affected states for housing, and yet
> they paid for the right kind of ID, or navigated an impenetrable web of underpaid bureaucrats
Pretty much everyone starts driving around 16-18 and has a driver's license
> manage to get off work on election day
CA is an early voting state where ballots are mailed to you ~1 month in advance. You can drop them off at your convenience at one of the numerous drop-off locations.
Really, CA makes it as easy to vote as possible including same-day registration. There is no excuse for young people to not vote, except for their apathy.
> they paid for the right kind of ID, or navigated an impenetrable web of underpaid bureaucrats
Pretty much everyone starts driving around 16-18 and has a driver's license
> manage to get off work on election day
CA is an early voting state where ballots are mailed to you ~1 month in advance. You can drop them off at your convenience at one of the numerous drop-off locations.
Really, CA makes it as easy to vote as possible including same-day registration. There is no excuse for young people to not vote, except for their apathy.
I was referring to the idea that in an aging country, even if young/old people would equally show up to vote, the older people will have more votes.
Which is democracy. It is fair in that sense, although surely it will not feel that way at all times.
Which is democracy. It is fair in that sense, although surely it will not feel that way at all times.
You could imagine a system where similar to how we split votes into geographical regions via things like electoral colleges or having a locally elected representatives, there could be a similar splitting of votes into age ranges to ensure each group is sufficiently represented
(Not advocating for this, just an interesting thing to think about)
(Not advocating for this, just an interesting thing to think about)
Indeed, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch. It's just an unusual and new idea to see young people as a minority as this never was the case to this extend.
As it comes to housing though, I remain convinced that the issue is not as political as many make it out to be. See my other comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36486626
Meaning, even if the young seize more political power, there isn't going to be a law they can pass that says "cut rent in half".
As it comes to housing though, I remain convinced that the issue is not as political as many make it out to be. See my other comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36486626
Meaning, even if the young seize more political power, there isn't going to be a law they can pass that says "cut rent in half".
There is also no law they can pass to reverse climatw change. Once some things are fucked, they are really hard to fix
Oh come on. If there was the mass of people who couldn't get registered to vote, the Democrats would pull out all the stops to get them registered.
You mean the SDP? They haven't been an independent party since 1983, and have been politically irrelevant for even longer.
Does the UK not have any equivalent of the US “motor voter” system? When we update our info at the department of motor vehicles, there’s a checkbox on the form to automatically register to vote. So getting on the register is mostly automatic once you have the paperwork in order to get a driver’s license (which is a necessity to function as an adult in most of the US).
I would guess that few countries have the type of situation that exists in the US where a driver's licence is almost essential in order to go about daily life.
Many people in the UK don't bother with a licence. It can be prohibitively expensive when you consider the costs of lessons, a vehicle, and of the licence itself.
Many people in the UK don't bother with a licence. It can be prohibitively expensive when you consider the costs of lessons, a vehicle, and of the licence itself.
Many people in the UK don't bother with a licence.
where a driver's licence is almost essential in order to go about daily life.
“in the 5 years from 2015 to 2019, an average of 74% of people in England had a full driving licence“
I note your statistic refers to "people" and not "adults". Usually, some proportion of the people of any given country are ineligible to receive a drivers licence on the basis of their age. It seems that age is 17 in the UK, although I'm not sure whether that counts as full or provisional until they've got a bit more experience. I'll assume full.
According to https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati... there's about 1.2% of the people in each age group <17 in England, which means 1.2*17 ~= 20 of the people in the England are ineligible for a drivers licence. So there's only about 6% of people in the England who could have a full drivers licence, but don't. So either they give licences out in the cornflakes at Tescos, or almost the whole adult population of the UK wants a drivers licence.
According to https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati... there's about 1.2% of the people in each age group <17 in England, which means 1.2*17 ~= 20 of the people in the England are ineligible for a drivers licence. So there's only about 6% of people in the England who could have a full drivers licence, but don't. So either they give licences out in the cornflakes at Tescos, or almost the whole adult population of the UK wants a drivers licence.
It's 74% of eligible adults, not 74% of the population.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/culture-a...
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/culture-a...
The provisional licence is enough as a voter ID though. I just used it in the last election.
Such problems only exist in third world countries, such as US or UK.
My country solves this by issuing a plastic ID card to each citizen. You apply for it at your local town hall, and it is free of charge. You can use that ID for voting, or any other interaction with the government when they need to confirm your identity. Hell, they even issued a smartphone application recently, that can be legally used as ID.
My country solves this by issuing a plastic ID card to each citizen. You apply for it at your local town hall, and it is free of charge. You can use that ID for voting, or any other interaction with the government when they need to confirm your identity. Hell, they even issued a smartphone application recently, that can be legally used as ID.
I need a Google Chrome plugin to block all HN comments that include the term "third world countries". That term is so grossly out of date. Read about it on Wiki. Yes, in wealthy countries, it is a proxy for very poor countries. Still, I do not like that term in 2023. It feels lazy.
And more HN vagueness in this post: "My country" Why not just say your country name? After all, most of the world is developing. You don't have much to lose.
And more HN vagueness in this post: "My country" Why not just say your country name? After all, most of the world is developing. You don't have much to lose.
And in the US if you don’t want/need a driver’s license then you just get a state issued ID card. Easy peasy.
Does that card allow you to vote? Is it free to obtain? Do people know that such option exists?
A provisional driving licence costs £34 (though you could also pay for the photo). I expect some young people get one primarily in order to be able to buy alcohol.
A passport costs £82.50 and is rather less useful as ID inside the UK because it doesn't show an address.
A passport costs £82.50 and is rather less useful as ID inside the UK because it doesn't show an address.
Every household gets sent a form once a year to register those people who are eligible to vote - ours is pre-populated with details of the current registrants
Thanks. I assumed there was something in place, and that the post above mine was a bit off the wall.
This is a wholly imaginary problem.
>Young people might get their first chance to vote at age 23 - assuming they paid for the right kind of ID, or navigated an impenetrable web of underpaid bureaucrats to get the mythical free ID.
uhh what? we're talking about britain here. I don't know what kind of yank(?) political dysfunction you're alluding to, but nobody has any trouble voting because of a lack of ID here. you don't need one to vote. you notify the electoral roll when you move into a house or flat, then a few weeks before election day you get a bit of paper in the post, you can bring it to the polling station to prove you live there.
uhh what? we're talking about britain here. I don't know what kind of yank(?) political dysfunction you're alluding to, but nobody has any trouble voting because of a lack of ID here. you don't need one to vote. you notify the electoral roll when you move into a house or flat, then a few weeks before election day you get a bit of paper in the post, you can bring it to the polling station to prove you live there.
That is not correct.
During the recent elections in England about 14,000 people were denied a vote due to lack of ID.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65988959
During the recent elections in England about 14,000 people were denied a vote due to lack of ID.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65988959
Great Britain has 67 million people. 14,000 people is unlikely to swing any election, even if they all voted in lockstep.
14,000 in the right places could easily topple a government in a tight election because of FPTP - although one can obviously not choose in reality.
In 2017 for example the minimum number of votes across the country needed to take down Theresa May (or more realistically have her form a true minority government) was something like 2500.
We have an extremely disproportional electoral system.
In 2017 for example the minimum number of votes across the country needed to take down Theresa May (or more realistically have her form a true minority government) was something like 2500.
We have an extremely disproportional electoral system.
That would have been 2500 in exactly the right places. 2500 in exactly the right places could also have given the Conservative Party even more seats.
If we are talking about 0.25% on average then I doubt it could have changed much in these local elections (back in May in England and Northern Ireland).
If anybody wants to play with the data from the General Election in 2017 they can do so here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2017_United_Kin...
Sort the table by "Mjrty." in ascending order. Right at the top we see wins for SNP, Labour, SNP, Labour, and Labour that easily could have been wins for Lib Dem, Tories, Tories, Tories, and Tories.
If we are talking about 0.25% on average then I doubt it could have changed much in these local elections (back in May in England and Northern Ireland).
If anybody wants to play with the data from the General Election in 2017 they can do so here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2017_United_Kin...
Sort the table by "Mjrty." in ascending order. Right at the top we see wins for SNP, Labour, SNP, Labour, and Labour that easily could have been wins for Lib Dem, Tories, Tories, Tories, and Tories.
67m is the UK population, not the GB population.
And 67m is nothing close to the size of the electorate of the local elections that number comes from.
And as another commenter wrote, a small number of votes can matter a great deal.
And 67m is nothing close to the size of the electorate of the local elections that number comes from.
And as another commenter wrote, a small number of votes can matter a great deal.
This article says that 70% of them just didn't bring any ID with them. That's on them.
It also says nothing about the remaining 30% except that they "brough a type that was not accepted". We don't actually know if they even had the right to vote.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/about-14000-people-england-...
Those who did have the right to vote could have gotten a free Voter Authority Certificate before the election:
https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certif...
It also says nothing about the remaining 30% except that they "brough a type that was not accepted". We don't actually know if they even had the right to vote.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/about-14000-people-england-...
Those who did have the right to vote could have gotten a free Voter Authority Certificate before the election:
https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certif...
Though since the correct ID is basically every kind of ID that's valid to buy age restricted goods like alcohol and stores have become more and more strict at checking that over the last few years that mostly seems to have been older people. (The government also permitted some other kinds of ID that older people are more likely to have access to in order to reduce this, but it didn't completely eliminate the problem and I'm pretty sure it wasn't expected to either.)
The press has, as usual, not been entirely honest about this. In particular, there was a talking point about how only one non-passport and non-driving license form of ID that young people are likely to have compared with much more forms of ID that older people will have, but that one form of ID is a blanket scheme that providers of ID sign up to in order for it to be valid as proof of age. There is no equivalent blanket scheme for ID that older people are likely to have.
The press has, as usual, not been entirely honest about this. In particular, there was a talking point about how only one non-passport and non-driving license form of ID that young people are likely to have compared with much more forms of ID that older people will have, but that one form of ID is a blanket scheme that providers of ID sign up to in order for it to be valid as proof of age. There is no equivalent blanket scheme for ID that older people are likely to have.
The government has introduced a requirement for photographic ID for all UK parliament elections, as well as local elections in England. This has been quite heavily discussed, so I'm surprised you haven't heard about it.
You’re a little out of date with your info
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/about-14000-people-england-...
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/about-14000-people-england-...
The article says that 70% of them hadn't bothered to bring their ID. Hardly the result of draconian laws, is it?
It also doesn't say how many of the 30% actually had the right to vote. It only says that they "brought a type that was not accepted".
It also doesn't say how many of the 30% actually had the right to vote. It only says that they "brought a type that was not accepted".
We usually have checks and balances in democracy so that a majority can't vote to say, take all the money from some minority group that has less voting power than them. What is happening now is that a "loophole" has been discovered wherein instead of just directly taking all of the money from some minority class the property owning class just instead condemns them to a lifetime of renting whereby just enough rent is charged to ensure that they are by and large never able to move out of renting, but not so much as to sow the seeds of a violent revolution (yet). Its democracy in the same way that voting to end all medical benefits for people over 65 would also be "democracy", which is to say it would be naked inter-generational and inter-class warfare.
I get what you're saying and I'm against inter-generational hate.
There is no plot against young people. Remember that most old people have children. If today's young people would time travel to some decades back, they'd too make the most of the conditions then. I would not imagine any young person that owns a home to sell it at a discount out of solidarity, they too would self-optimize without any consideration for anybody else.
Young people today aren't especially targeted, they are at the end of what was a demographic/economic/infra/building boom. Those conditions cannot be recreated.
There is no plot against young people. Remember that most old people have children. If today's young people would time travel to some decades back, they'd too make the most of the conditions then. I would not imagine any young person that owns a home to sell it at a discount out of solidarity, they too would self-optimize without any consideration for anybody else.
Young people today aren't especially targeted, they are at the end of what was a demographic/economic/infra/building boom. Those conditions cannot be recreated.
I don't think that the older generation "hates" youth, I don't think they think about them at all really. In the conversations I've had with Boomers and older people, although there is the standard derision for youth that is stereotypically expected of older generations, I would say there is more an immense blindspot and unwillingness to consider even a slight sacrifice of any type, even for their own children. The expectation is that the youth will just have to work hard like they did in there day and a complete unwillingness to confront any sort of conversation about what hard work could buy in their day vs the present one. I've watched boomers talk to each other about their kids or grandkids being unable to buy a home amongst each and other and I would describe the overall vibe as being one of detached "oh well, sucks for them" type acceptance, and trying to console each other that their kids are doing fine in other ways (they buy a new iphone every other year!!!). Your comment actually mirrors a lot of their attitude, especially the part about how the youth of today would definitely do the same things, so why feel guilty about doing it, a hypothesis that has no way of being disproved and which exists largely as a balm to soothe their conscience as they try to deal with the cognitive dissonance of watching their children suffer, and then voting for parties and policies that will prolong that suffering.
You wouldn't imagine any young person doing something to help another person out in some sort of solidarity and yet I generally see this exact mindset in terms of voting for left wing parties that will raise taxes, including theirs, voting and campaigning for increased density which will affect the character of their neighborhoods and possibly decrease their property values. Hell I have never voted for a party that would decrease my taxes and I am pretty up front about needing to be taxed more as I am very fortunate with my employment and income situation. I've had conversations at length with boomers advocating for tax cuts which would cut funding to education, arguing that it is pretty convenient that they want these cuts right around the time that they have no children in public school and asked if we should also cut medical funding, funding that they disproportionately draw on and the response has been universally "No", that funding is good and necessary.
So I don't think that they young are "especially targeted" and more that anyone who is not a boomer and up is targeted and that happens to include the youth. We can tell ourselves a bunch of stories but stats around home ownership, lifespan, healthspan, median income, etc, etc, etc, a laundry list tells the actual story of what the current relationship is like between generations. You don't have to hate someone to harm them greatly...
You wouldn't imagine any young person doing something to help another person out in some sort of solidarity and yet I generally see this exact mindset in terms of voting for left wing parties that will raise taxes, including theirs, voting and campaigning for increased density which will affect the character of their neighborhoods and possibly decrease their property values. Hell I have never voted for a party that would decrease my taxes and I am pretty up front about needing to be taxed more as I am very fortunate with my employment and income situation. I've had conversations at length with boomers advocating for tax cuts which would cut funding to education, arguing that it is pretty convenient that they want these cuts right around the time that they have no children in public school and asked if we should also cut medical funding, funding that they disproportionately draw on and the response has been universally "No", that funding is good and necessary.
So I don't think that they young are "especially targeted" and more that anyone who is not a boomer and up is targeted and that happens to include the youth. We can tell ourselves a bunch of stories but stats around home ownership, lifespan, healthspan, median income, etc, etc, etc, a laundry list tells the actual story of what the current relationship is like between generations. You don't have to hate someone to harm them greatly...
Step on a bus sometime. The hate towards younger children (below, give or take 10 years) is easily noticeable. Oh and the hate towards male youngsters starts again at 17 or so, especially if there's somewhat more color on the skin, but of course nobody really dares to treat them like they treat a 6 year old.
This pretty much sums it up. I doubt it's some special boomer mentality as much as a "people" mentality. People are fairly selfish and don't want to reduce their quality of life.
What's shifted over the last few decades is that people live longer. Boomers basically just got lucky - they didn't have a huge older generation above them, so the cost of social security was fairly low when they were young. They managed to buy houses at a time of massive urban expansion, meaning their total lifetime cost of housing was pretty low.
And now they're heading towards retirement, with vast unearned housing wealth and having spent decades with housing as an almost insignificant cost, they've got no incentive to change things.
What's shifted over the last few decades is that people live longer. Boomers basically just got lucky - they didn't have a huge older generation above them, so the cost of social security was fairly low when they were young. They managed to buy houses at a time of massive urban expansion, meaning their total lifetime cost of housing was pretty low.
And now they're heading towards retirement, with vast unearned housing wealth and having spent decades with housing as an almost insignificant cost, they've got no incentive to change things.
You forgot to mention that boomers had high mortgage rates. According to https://themortgagereports.com/61853/30-year-mortgage-rates-... my parents, boomers, would likely have had 16%+ and 12%+ rates when they bought their first homes. Contrast this to myself, a borderline Millennial/Gen X, who bought houses after the 2008 crash and currently have a 3% mortgage. Makes me wonder why Boomers are the always the primary target of younger generation's ire.
The interest rate at the time of buying is actually fairly irrelevant. What matters is the total lifetime cost of housing. Even though interest rates were high, purchase costs were much lower in terms of multiples of income. It's pretty clear that many boomers have benefited from a very low total lifetime cost of housing.
The low interest rates/high house prices is now turning into a double blow - at least here in the UK (and for anyone that needs to move house in the US) - as low interest rates meant low monthly payments, which has inflated house prices further. Now people are having to refinance massive mortgages at higher rates, the cost is becoming even greater.
Ultimately you just have to look at statistics of home ownership rates by age to see that things are getting worse for younger people. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-research/resbull/2022...
The low interest rates/high house prices is now turning into a double blow - at least here in the UK (and for anyone that needs to move house in the US) - as low interest rates meant low monthly payments, which has inflated house prices further. Now people are having to refinance massive mortgages at higher rates, the cost is becoming even greater.
Ultimately you just have to look at statistics of home ownership rates by age to see that things are getting worse for younger people. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-research/resbull/2022...
young people are absolutely targeted - education was fre for older generation, and young people get a lofetine of debt.
In boomer time government probided free milk for babies, now baby formula is the most stolen items and is kept under lock and key in super market
Todays politicians talk about growijg up ina. councill home as a market of being through hard times. They dont even get thay councill homes are gone, and if they were growing up today, they would be on the street
In boomer time government probided free milk for babies, now baby formula is the most stolen items and is kept under lock and key in super market
Todays politicians talk about growijg up ina. councill home as a market of being through hard times. They dont even get thay councill homes are gone, and if they were growing up today, they would be on the street
Yep, democracy in action. Although I suspect if polities were smaller and more independent then certain areas, with more poor and young people, would vote to prioritise policies to incentivise housing construction.
Large polities result in the same policies being applied to regions that are fundamentally different in ways that make policy good for some and bad for others.
I think housing issues present a good case for confederalism or even anarchism. States rights in the US or Swiss Cantons are examples where different regions have more control over policies and thus can suit them to their own specific needs. The smaller the polity the better. Also why special economic zones tend to produce good outcomes.
Large polities result in the same policies being applied to regions that are fundamentally different in ways that make policy good for some and bad for others.
I think housing issues present a good case for confederalism or even anarchism. States rights in the US or Swiss Cantons are examples where different regions have more control over policies and thus can suit them to their own specific needs. The smaller the polity the better. Also why special economic zones tend to produce good outcomes.
>The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or change in zoning laws.
The prices in high demand areas, are going to be high, whether residents can legally oppose new developments or not. How much does a house cost in California or New York?
The prices in high demand areas, are going to be high, whether residents can legally oppose new developments or not. How much does a house cost in California or New York?
> Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners.
This doesn't explain the constant increase in property tax levies being passed in Washington State.
This doesn't explain the constant increase in property tax levies being passed in Washington State.
If you're going to cherrypick a single example to rebut the existence of an overarching trend in the UK, you could at least pick a state with an income tax. Or, perhaps, not beat the dead horse at all and talk about Britain.
Washington state just decided that capital gains were not income, and imposed a 7% tax on them.
Besides, I don't see how the age demographics in Wa state would be materially different from Britain's.
Besides, I don't see how the age demographics in Wa state would be materially different from Britain's.
If you're so fixated on Washington state, you should really learn its history. And also British history. They're very different places with very different politics. You're comparing a flyover state (speaking as somebody born there) to the center of a colonial power.
And a 7% flat tax is a trifle.
And a 7% flat tax is a trifle.
Exactly. 20% is also very low. Maybe consider complaining when it’s progressive up to 90%.
It’s the whole western world at the same time. The same policies, the same social outcomes. It makes me question whether there is any real democracy; did we all just happen to make the exact same decisions in lock step since the 70s by incredible coincidence?
And it’s not as if the eventual negative outcomes of housing costs continually outstripping wage growth weren’t obvious and growing year on year. Who is actually in control here? Is it blind forces pushing us to an inevitable outcome? The Illuminati? Lizard people?
Is there any free will or are we just doomed to follow this course to who knows where? Can’t we figure out what we actually want as societies, and make policy that matches it?
And it’s not as if the eventual negative outcomes of housing costs continually outstripping wage growth weren’t obvious and growing year on year. Who is actually in control here? Is it blind forces pushing us to an inevitable outcome? The Illuminati? Lizard people?
Is there any free will or are we just doomed to follow this course to who knows where? Can’t we figure out what we actually want as societies, and make policy that matches it?
> did we all just happen to make the exact same decisions in lock step since the 70s by incredible coincidence?
Not US, and for reasons, the housing crisis is not _that_ bad where I live, but: in principle our country is exactly like our parent's generation imagined it. It's perfectly aligned with their interests. Where they'd hike to a hut in the mountains once, there is now a paved road, so they can still drive to the hut, even though they're not able to walk anymore. Somewhere else they built a cable car, for exactly the same purpose. They have houses. They have cars. They dominate every political institution there is. They voted to keep the conscription, so enough poor young people who alternatively chose community service would be available when they need care, eventually. They go on vacations three times a year. And heaven forbid they'd need to give up _anything_ they once had. Political parties that suggest anything like that would have no chance in elections.
> Who is actually in control here?
I think they are.
Not US, and for reasons, the housing crisis is not _that_ bad where I live, but: in principle our country is exactly like our parent's generation imagined it. It's perfectly aligned with their interests. Where they'd hike to a hut in the mountains once, there is now a paved road, so they can still drive to the hut, even though they're not able to walk anymore. Somewhere else they built a cable car, for exactly the same purpose. They have houses. They have cars. They dominate every political institution there is. They voted to keep the conscription, so enough poor young people who alternatively chose community service would be available when they need care, eventually. They go on vacations three times a year. And heaven forbid they'd need to give up _anything_ they once had. Political parties that suggest anything like that would have no chance in elections.
> Who is actually in control here?
I think they are.
This is definitely it. It's a question of demographics. The developed world used to be for young people because people there were mostly young. Now decisions are taken by and for old people, and those of us who aren't are afterthoughts.
A good example of this is the age at which our constitutions were drafted vs how old politicians are now. This is also the case in Norway but I think the US is a more relatable example on HN: Biden is twice the average age of the delegates in 1787.
A good example of this is the age at which our constitutions were drafted vs how old politicians are now. This is also the case in Norway but I think the US is a more relatable example on HN: Biden is twice the average age of the delegates in 1787.
The millenial generation is now the largest cohort in the United States.
The issue is that generally, it takes a while for a cohort to build up political power.
The issue is that generally, it takes a while for a cohort to build up political power.
In all these systems where "the world over" we have the same end result, what do we have in common? Shareholders, for profit companies, consultancies, an entire sector of the economy is just consultancies. Its death by a thousand cuts set up by the incentives. You don't know what the hell you are doing, so hey lets act like you do by bringing in a consultancy who does know what they are doing because that's their job. In effect, you get to be bad at your job but be good at your job since you rubber stamped "bring in a consultant" on the project.
Then what about these consultants? Well, they don't need to actually solve the problem either. They just make various plans and present a slide deck to management at the end and collect a check. Whether the plan works or not doesn't even matter here, because the consultants got paid already and are on to the next job, the manager looks good because they brought in a consultancy, and if shit fails in the next three years well its no ones fault, because management will act like they did everything right bringing in the consultancy and will cut other staff first.
Consultancyism is everywhere these days. Its the next big thing in emerging markets which is even scarier and only a fig leaf away from imperialism with the terms of how some of these deals are struck, always to the benefit of capital with the people seen as a resource for extraction or exploitation. Consultancyism probably also encourages an unhealthy mercenary outlook on life. Never taking pride in projects because they are never your projects in your community, they are just jobs elsewhere to make some money.
Then what about these consultants? Well, they don't need to actually solve the problem either. They just make various plans and present a slide deck to management at the end and collect a check. Whether the plan works or not doesn't even matter here, because the consultants got paid already and are on to the next job, the manager looks good because they brought in a consultancy, and if shit fails in the next three years well its no ones fault, because management will act like they did everything right bringing in the consultancy and will cut other staff first.
Consultancyism is everywhere these days. Its the next big thing in emerging markets which is even scarier and only a fig leaf away from imperialism with the terms of how some of these deals are struck, always to the benefit of capital with the people seen as a resource for extraction or exploitation. Consultancyism probably also encourages an unhealthy mercenary outlook on life. Never taking pride in projects because they are never your projects in your community, they are just jobs elsewhere to make some money.
Disclosure: I am a very senior data science consultant in an infrastructure management consultancy
Consultancy can be a good thing - or a bad thing, depending on which consultants are brought in, and why.
It is one of the oldest tropes that consultants are brought in to tell people what they already know - and there is some truth in it. But when it comes down to it, consultants are asked to do this job because they are external - and they can tell truth to power without being seen as having an internal political agenda.
As consultants, we are brought in by clients to provide skills that they don't have in house. There tend to be two reasons for this. Either they want us for a short period to do a specific task which wouldn't be worth them recruiting for, or they are looking for a longer term relationship - in which case we can offer them access to a wider pool of talent than they would get by recruiting in.
Finally, I have worked with a great number of talented folks at all stages of their careers. Almost without exception, every one of them has been passionate about their work, and determined to do the best job possible for the clients. And a number of them have left us to work directly for clients.
[edited for typos]
Consultancy can be a good thing - or a bad thing, depending on which consultants are brought in, and why.
It is one of the oldest tropes that consultants are brought in to tell people what they already know - and there is some truth in it. But when it comes down to it, consultants are asked to do this job because they are external - and they can tell truth to power without being seen as having an internal political agenda.
As consultants, we are brought in by clients to provide skills that they don't have in house. There tend to be two reasons for this. Either they want us for a short period to do a specific task which wouldn't be worth them recruiting for, or they are looking for a longer term relationship - in which case we can offer them access to a wider pool of talent than they would get by recruiting in.
Finally, I have worked with a great number of talented folks at all stages of their careers. Almost without exception, every one of them has been passionate about their work, and determined to do the best job possible for the clients. And a number of them have left us to work directly for clients.
[edited for typos]
It definitely seems to be more of an Anglosphere problem than elsewhere. I've been learning other languages with the long term view of permanently escaping the Anglosphere in the next 5 years, unless I finally manage to land a job that pays enough to allow me some stability.
> Anglosphere
In my opinion, this is an underutilized term that could be used to group trends/behaviors and consequently policy decisions.
In my opinion, this is an underutilized term that could be used to group trends/behaviors and consequently policy decisions.
There may be entire regions without this problem, but it is absolutely not restricted to the Anglosphere.
Yes, the homevoter mentality is much worse in the English speaking countries than it is in continental Europe or in developed East Asia.
Sure we can. But many of the younger people most negatively impacted by housing policy don't bother to vote at all. Or if they do vote they do so based on social issues. I've never seen housing availability come up as the #1 issue in any voter survey.
> Who is actually in control here? Is it blind forces pushing us to an inevitable outcome? The Illuminati? Lizard people?
less blind forces, more "well, what would you do in their situation": the people who first paid money for a given square of land were also the first to try to convince someone else to pay them more for that same land
natural resources aside, land only really has the value that other people are willing to pay for it, like currency. so if you want the "growth of your asset", the only thing you can really do is convince people the land is worth more than what you paid for it, for whatever reasons you dream up
globalisation just made everyone's marketing messages go 'round the world
less blind forces, more "well, what would you do in their situation": the people who first paid money for a given square of land were also the first to try to convince someone else to pay them more for that same land
natural resources aside, land only really has the value that other people are willing to pay for it, like currency. so if you want the "growth of your asset", the only thing you can really do is convince people the land is worth more than what you paid for it, for whatever reasons you dream up
globalisation just made everyone's marketing messages go 'round the world
There's a little more to it. If it was merely about getting all the profit you could out of land, there's be no sense capping a bay area neighborhood at single family home densities, when you could probably build a 25 story condo on each single family home lot and sell each story as its own luxury condo for the price of that 1930s single story california home that sits there today.
I think nimbyism just appeals to the monkey side of the brain we all have. If you are happy and surviving, there's probably millions of years of biological evolution in your behavior that's telling you to keep up what you are doing where you are. There's probably a side of your brain that subconsciously gets irritated at seeing more humans move into an area competing for resources with you, even if today that just means a parking spot at the grocery store and not an appreciable dent on game populations. Stuff like cities and dense living on top of many different "tribes" only happened within the last few thousand years, that's only like 50-100 generations and that's only considering those ancient cities that were around then, plenty of places have been rural for all of human history. Not nearly enough time to expect a significant amount of adaption, and that's only if there is a remarkably strong selective pressure favoring adaption.
I think nimbyism just appeals to the monkey side of the brain we all have. If you are happy and surviving, there's probably millions of years of biological evolution in your behavior that's telling you to keep up what you are doing where you are. There's probably a side of your brain that subconsciously gets irritated at seeing more humans move into an area competing for resources with you, even if today that just means a parking spot at the grocery store and not an appreciable dent on game populations. Stuff like cities and dense living on top of many different "tribes" only happened within the last few thousand years, that's only like 50-100 generations and that's only considering those ancient cities that were around then, plenty of places have been rural for all of human history. Not nearly enough time to expect a significant amount of adaption, and that's only if there is a remarkably strong selective pressure favoring adaption.
> less blind forces, more "well, what would you do in their situation": the people who first paid money for a given square of land were also the first to try to convince someone else to pay them more for that same land
It seems a bit silly to argue that increasing land prices is principally a result of marketing. The amount of earth on the planet in the last 10k years essentially hasn't changed but the number of humans has increased almost 2000%. Population growth is surely a "blind force", right?
It seems a bit silly to argue that increasing land prices is principally a result of marketing. The amount of earth on the planet in the last 10k years essentially hasn't changed but the number of humans has increased almost 2000%. Population growth is surely a "blind force", right?
The thing is, we used to respond to such growth easily in a way that prevented land prices from being so out of reach for average workers. Here is the population of Los Angeles over the years:
1850 1,610 —
1860 4,385 172.4%
1870 5,728 30.6%
1880 11,183 95.2%
1890 50,395 350.6%
1900 102,479 103.4%
1910 319,198 211.5%
1920 576,673 80.7%
1930 1,238,048 114.7%
1940 1,504,277 21.5%
1950 1,970,358 31.0%
1960 2,479,015 25.8%
1970 2,811,801 13.4%
1980 2,968,528 5.6%
1990 3,485,398 17.4%
2000 3,694,820 6.0%
2010 3,792,621 2.6%
2020 3,898,747 2.8%
As you can see, the city used to experience massive decade over decade growth. It also used to be zoned for 10 million people in the 1960s, today though, its zoned for a little bit over 4 million people, creating the housing crisis we see today because not a lot of properties are even able to be built up even if they are available for sale and potentially a turnover. There's no shortage of land, its just mismanaged.
1850 1,610 —
1860 4,385 172.4%
1870 5,728 30.6%
1880 11,183 95.2%
1890 50,395 350.6%
1900 102,479 103.4%
1910 319,198 211.5%
1920 576,673 80.7%
1930 1,238,048 114.7%
1940 1,504,277 21.5%
1950 1,970,358 31.0%
1960 2,479,015 25.8%
1970 2,811,801 13.4%
1980 2,968,528 5.6%
1990 3,485,398 17.4%
2000 3,694,820 6.0%
2010 3,792,621 2.6%
2020 3,898,747 2.8%
As you can see, the city used to experience massive decade over decade growth. It also used to be zoned for 10 million people in the 1960s, today though, its zoned for a little bit over 4 million people, creating the housing crisis we see today because not a lot of properties are even able to be built up even if they are available for sale and potentially a turnover. There's no shortage of land, its just mismanaged.
Sure, I was remarking narrowly about the “forces vs marketing” claims. I don’t have a position on land prices have adapted with population growth (although I’m not sure looking narrowly at a single city is particularly compelling).
Is it really true that there's no shortage of land? I lived in the LA area and rarely saw empty plots. What is obvious is that we could improve density by encouraging more mid-rises and high-rises.
that's true, market forces like supply and demand affect everything in the economy, and while we've grown, our landmass has remained static.
which parts of the land are worth more than others though, I think the article does a good job of providing examples too: people living closer to each central city had higher wages, which meant they could pay more for the land pieces... so they did, which meant they had to ask more when selling in order to 'break even' or 'realize on their investment'
i guess the bigger question is: why did we tie our need for shelter into the economy? in order to achieve constant growth (ensure someone isnt left 'holding the bag'), we have to either be willfully ignorant of a growing population, or maintain a fantasy of there always being viable room for ever more people
i hope we start colonizing the moon or even mars before we have to deal with fallout from the above...
which parts of the land are worth more than others though, I think the article does a good job of providing examples too: people living closer to each central city had higher wages, which meant they could pay more for the land pieces... so they did, which meant they had to ask more when selling in order to 'break even' or 'realize on their investment'
i guess the bigger question is: why did we tie our need for shelter into the economy? in order to achieve constant growth (ensure someone isnt left 'holding the bag'), we have to either be willfully ignorant of a growing population, or maintain a fantasy of there always being viable room for ever more people
i hope we start colonizing the moon or even mars before we have to deal with fallout from the above...
> which parts of the land are worth more than others though, I think the article does a good job of providing examples too: people living closer to each central city had higher wages, which meant they could pay more for the land pieces... so they did, which meant they had to ask more when selling in order to 'break even' or 'realize on their investment'
I don’t think that’s a very compelling explanation for increased market prices for city centers either. It doesn’t address the rival (and more likely IMO) claim that prices increased for economic reasons (maybe city salaries increased even further or even something as nebulous as “Hollywood portrayed cities as vibrant, desirable places to several generations”).
I don’t think that’s a very compelling explanation for increased market prices for city centers either. It doesn’t address the rival (and more likely IMO) claim that prices increased for economic reasons (maybe city salaries increased even further or even something as nebulous as “Hollywood portrayed cities as vibrant, desirable places to several generations”).
>It seems a bit silly to argue that increasing land prices is principally a result of marketing. The amount of earth on the planet in the last 10k years essentially hasn't changed but the number of humans has increased almost 2000%. Population growth is surely a "blind force", right?
But in some places population is the same or even declining and prices are still going up.
But in some places population is the same or even declining and prices are still going up.
Sure, there are definitely other factors as well—for example, the local economy may be growing such that there is more intense competition for housing in close proximity to downtown. This is also a pretty “blind force” (rather than homeowners marketing their homes).
Hahaha. Man wants to be fit, swears on his diet routine, sees a chocolate bar on the kitchen table literally 3 seconds later and reverses his decision. Is he under the control of his rational mind? Will? Does an alcoholic choose to continue to drink alcohol after he is an addict?
There is will, and there is will.
Pretending that this doesn't apply to whole societies and that today's secular societies are not driven mostly by a deterministic mechanism consisting of human nature combined with the environment (technology + physical world) is a fool's act, and the ubiqiotus internet commenter attitude. Man yelling at the clouds, clouds of human nature and environment.
There is will, and there is will.
Pretending that this doesn't apply to whole societies and that today's secular societies are not driven mostly by a deterministic mechanism consisting of human nature combined with the environment (technology + physical world) is a fool's act, and the ubiqiotus internet commenter attitude. Man yelling at the clouds, clouds of human nature and environment.
There's a pattern I've noticed of outsourcing code requirements. Most municipalities seem to adopt the international building code, and then because that code book is updated all the time, and none of the local officials actually understand it, they start to require that applicants prove that they meet the code. Planning commissions start to believe that they need to control everything that everybody does, but they shouldn't. Because everything is a shifting target, and proof is almost impossible, everything gets road blocked.
For the most part, I agree with building codes. They serve a purpose by ensuring that unsafe buildings aren't created. But they've become so esoteric, that meeting them is an exercise in futility.
I can't wait for the day that a "safe building" AI just watches everything, and tells people what to do. That way even unskilled labor can do work, and the work will be up to a safe standard.
Code officials are the worst sort of power tripping bureaucrats. I can't wait for them to be eliminated.
For the most part, I agree with building codes. They serve a purpose by ensuring that unsafe buildings aren't created. But they've become so esoteric, that meeting them is an exercise in futility.
I can't wait for the day that a "safe building" AI just watches everything, and tells people what to do. That way even unskilled labor can do work, and the work will be up to a safe standard.
Code officials are the worst sort of power tripping bureaucrats. I can't wait for them to be eliminated.
It's not really the entire world: See Spain [1]:
Until the financial crisis in 2007, the country liberalized building, often quite dense as opposed to plain sprawl. See, for instance, the growth in the towns surrounding Madrid around train stations. The crisis slowed it down massively though, in part because a lot of builders lost their shirts, as the building became massive overbuilding. But when demand goes up enough, it's still possible to build, and build high. In my home town in Spain, people can still afford homes. If there's an issue, it's still just jobs instead.
So yes, this is all something that is politically solvable in the west. We just need a unified legislative recipe, and strong advocacy. Other lobbying groups manage to get through very unpopular legislation. Why not for something that would actually help?
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSCNDW01ESA470N
So yes, this is all something that is politically solvable in the west. We just need a unified legislative recipe, and strong advocacy. Other lobbying groups manage to get through very unpopular legislation. Why not for something that would actually help?
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSCNDW01ESA470N
Some latin american cities are starting to make even nyc look small. I expect in 30 years that a lot of latin america will look like southeast asian cities while American cities look the same as they did 30 years ago for another 30 years.
EY wrote a good book about that very topic: "Inadequate Equilibria -- Where and How Civilizations Get Stuck"
https://equilibriabook.com/
It seems to me much more about group incentives than some nefarious lockstep plan. Existing homeowners incentives are liking things as they are and increasing wealth on paper. What’s more interesting is what changed since the ~60s inflection, since before, things were built. People literally experienced NYC grow into a megalopolis. I’d say it’s more likely that more democracy was the problem in stifling things, when every environmental review and city council meeting blocked things and threw out city mayors that were pro building. China is totalitarian and they are the ones who manage to rapidly build cities and bullet trains out of nothing.
> It seems to me much more about group incentives than some nefarious lockstep plan.
Yes, probably, but isn’t this worse? Group incentives favour those that already have capital (material and political), which creates a feedback-loop increasing the rich-poor divide until… what exactly? What’s the end-state? A return to feudalism? Bloody revolution?
It just seems like there was a “once upon a time” where politics was about “this is the society we want”, and they tried to build it. Now it seems we’ve all just given up.
Meaningless! Meaningless! Let’s deconstruct society until we can argue that a future of 1% home ownership is somehow better.
Yes, probably, but isn’t this worse? Group incentives favour those that already have capital (material and political), which creates a feedback-loop increasing the rich-poor divide until… what exactly? What’s the end-state? A return to feudalism? Bloody revolution?
It just seems like there was a “once upon a time” where politics was about “this is the society we want”, and they tried to build it. Now it seems we’ve all just given up.
Meaningless! Meaningless! Let’s deconstruct society until we can argue that a future of 1% home ownership is somehow better.
Whether or not there is real democracy anywhere (I'd say "no"), there has been a deep cultural homogenization imposed by the media since the 70s. And a really strong deviation from fact-based bottom-up world modeling.
It's technically possible that people just decided to vote the same way in half of the world for decades. Besides, the local plutocracy wanting the same things everywhere isn't easy to explain either.
It's technically possible that people just decided to vote the same way in half of the world for decades. Besides, the local plutocracy wanting the same things everywhere isn't easy to explain either.
It's an interesting observation. I'm part of a few UK and Canadian regional subreddits, and the topics of conversation are often very similar. House prices are too high, we need to build more, the government is favouring boomers, the economy is stagnating, we need more manufacturing and less real estate speculation etc. What's particularly interesting is that often in the UK ones people paint Canada as being far better. The Canadian ones seem to idolise the US.
It's clearly a global structural issue. Low interest rates are a pan-national commonality - and they can take a lot of blame for part of the situation we're in now. But they don't explain housing shortages.
Population growth probably plays a big part - housing is always going to be lagging population growth. The various stories I've seen about Japan - with low rents, falling house prices and large numbers of abandoned houses - seem to map with the falling Japanese population. "Things were better in the 70s/80s/90s" probably partly just means that the ratio of houses to people was better. The population of most major western cities was falling or flat through much of the 70s and 80s - leading to the situation where my parent's generation all seem to have snapped up large, well located houses for not very much money.
I'm fully supportive of the idea that, with all things equal, if we build more houses then supply and demand will drop prices. But if you allow unchecked population growth (which in the UK and Canada seems to be primarily caused by immigration) then the amount of building required is effectively infinite.
I've visited the Toronto area from the UK more or less every year since I was a child, and the overwhelming story is one of huge development. The change in the suburbs of Toronto over the past 30 years has been vast and unlike anything I've seen in the UK. Yet that clearly hasn't been enough to stop house prices going crazy as well. The net effect, though, is that there's miles and miles of sprawl and 6 lane streets dominated by cars. The answer definitely isn't to build more of that. The population of Canada has grown by 40% in the last 30 years.
Population growth combined with an ageing population and the kind of rights purchasing a house gives you in the west create increasing inequality driven by land. That seems to be the underlying issue that's driving city house values up everywhere.
There are possibly some answers. In the UK in the 60s-80s we built entire new cities, with the land purchased by the government at agricultural value so that the entire uplift was captured by the developers rather than speculators.
It's clearly a global structural issue. Low interest rates are a pan-national commonality - and they can take a lot of blame for part of the situation we're in now. But they don't explain housing shortages.
Population growth probably plays a big part - housing is always going to be lagging population growth. The various stories I've seen about Japan - with low rents, falling house prices and large numbers of abandoned houses - seem to map with the falling Japanese population. "Things were better in the 70s/80s/90s" probably partly just means that the ratio of houses to people was better. The population of most major western cities was falling or flat through much of the 70s and 80s - leading to the situation where my parent's generation all seem to have snapped up large, well located houses for not very much money.
I'm fully supportive of the idea that, with all things equal, if we build more houses then supply and demand will drop prices. But if you allow unchecked population growth (which in the UK and Canada seems to be primarily caused by immigration) then the amount of building required is effectively infinite.
I've visited the Toronto area from the UK more or less every year since I was a child, and the overwhelming story is one of huge development. The change in the suburbs of Toronto over the past 30 years has been vast and unlike anything I've seen in the UK. Yet that clearly hasn't been enough to stop house prices going crazy as well. The net effect, though, is that there's miles and miles of sprawl and 6 lane streets dominated by cars. The answer definitely isn't to build more of that. The population of Canada has grown by 40% in the last 30 years.
Population growth combined with an ageing population and the kind of rights purchasing a house gives you in the west create increasing inequality driven by land. That seems to be the underlying issue that's driving city house values up everywhere.
There are possibly some answers. In the UK in the 60s-80s we built entire new cities, with the land purchased by the government at agricultural value so that the entire uplift was captured by the developers rather than speculators.
Housing in Japan is affordable even in the big cities that are not shrinking (yet). The main reasons why are very liberal zoning, ubiquitous and functional public transport that makes continuing long distance feasible, and tolerance for tightly packed apartments and houses that would be considered far too small in most of the West.
And, perhaps, a vicious but lasting lesson taught to property speculators at the start of the 1990s.
Which Canadian subreddits idolize the U.S? Generally both countries have pretty similarly horrible development patterns with a tiny amount of exceptions. My impression is that the U.S just does sprawl and car-centricity to an extreme, like Toronto, but I can't say I've come across anywhere more compelling.
I have noticed the same thing as the person you're replying to.
I think the reason is there are a lot of tech / tech-adjacent workers on Reddit and they know people less than 100 miles away (in the USA) are doing the same job as them, possibly at the same company even, but are getting significantly higher compensation packages.
I think the reason is there are a lot of tech / tech-adjacent workers on Reddit and they know people less than 100 miles away (in the USA) are doing the same job as them, possibly at the same company even, but are getting significantly higher compensation packages.
People have been saying this for years. Why do Canadian techies stay in canada? Tough immigration to US keeping them trapped? Seems like that's been the drumbeat of the central US tech scene for years and its resulted in all the engineering grads from those schools trying to flock to the coasts, and there basically being not much of a tech industry at all in the wake.
Canadian techie here :) I moved to the US for work super early in my career, and recently moved back to Canada after nearly a decade (mostly just for a change in scenery). I work in games, so I never made the super high FAANG wages I see talked about everywhere on here, but it's true even in games that you'll make significantly more in the US than in Canada. I make more than I need for the lifestyle that makes me happy though, so the pay disparity is honestly a non issue for me.
US immigration laws are a complete non issue for tech workers (at least in my experience, you still have to fill out a boat load of paperwork, but if a US company wants you, things move pretty quick). Mostly, people I work with seem to not want to move the the US for the same reasons people don't want to move to another state: they're happy enough where they are, they'd be leaving friends/family, they're worried if the move that their life will be worse, they already make enough money to be comfortable (if not inordinately wealthy). If they're parents, they usually are also wary about uprooting their kids' lives.
US immigration laws are a complete non issue for tech workers (at least in my experience, you still have to fill out a boat load of paperwork, but if a US company wants you, things move pretty quick). Mostly, people I work with seem to not want to move the the US for the same reasons people don't want to move to another state: they're happy enough where they are, they'd be leaving friends/family, they're worried if the move that their life will be worse, they already make enough money to be comfortable (if not inordinately wealthy). If they're parents, they usually are also wary about uprooting their kids' lives.
The latter half of your comment is much more important to me personally, even as someone who's usually up for an adventure, but if you don't have a degree my impression is that it's pretty much not feasible to cross the border and get a job, or at least sufficiently annoying that I'd need to want that a whole lot more than I do. Aside from that though, I only tend to like the U.S in small doses; it's an extremely work-obsessed/stuff-obsessed place that feels a little culturally hollow in some way, but that is a cool place in other ways.
I suppose my consideration could be different if I got a job that paid > $150k or something and could actually take it, but the recession is here and the job market is dead, and so far it hasn't crossed my mind to try and make it possible, so I'm going to continue draining my savings while I look for a job here in Vancouver that will probably be below $130k CAD
I suppose my consideration could be different if I got a job that paid > $150k or something and could actually take it, but the recession is here and the job market is dead, and so far it hasn't crossed my mind to try and make it possible, so I'm going to continue draining my savings while I look for a job here in Vancouver that will probably be below $130k CAD
Fwiw, I don't have a degree (just a diploma from a college in toronto) and it has been a non issue. It mattered slightly when I had less than 3 years of work experience, but after that no one has cared.
We have very different views of the US though. I felt the same as you when my only US experience was in the Bay Area, but after living in Chicago for 5+ years and having visited a bunch of places around the country, I miss a lot about American culture now that I'm not there.
We have very different views of the US though. I felt the same as you when my only US experience was in the Bay Area, but after living in Chicago for 5+ years and having visited a bunch of places around the country, I miss a lot about American culture now that I'm not there.
I've visited Chicago once, and hope it's not too long before I visit again. I actually love many bits of the U.S culturally and physically, I meant to say that I just don't know that I'd prefer to live there for an extended period of time.
Regarding the degree, it was less a matter of whether people care, and more about the actual visa. Perhaps a two-year diploma is more workable; I only have a 1 year technical diploma from a Uni, and although I haven't aggressively pursued getting across, it doesn't seem like I'd meet the requirements with it. Would be curious though, because the job market is truly shit here atm.
Just took a short road-trip down through Washington and Oregon, and really enjoyed my time. You're right in that I didn't think much about the difference until I got down to the Bay Area. I do think there is some sort of imbued mega-capitalist eat eat eat buy buy buy nature to many other places though that just sort of vibes me out sometimes, and maybe some airports are an example of this; almost a volume difference.
I noticed it for the first time when passing through the Minneapolis airport of all places. Felt like there was a hundred neon signs flashing at me to eat some burger or get a pedicure while waiting for my flight. Every table at a particular restaurant had an iPad right when they came out. While we have Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops, there's are basically theme parks. That kind of thing; it's not everywhere, in-fact it's probably a rare feeling I get, but it's a level of excess that's hard to feel comfortable around.
Regarding the degree, it was less a matter of whether people care, and more about the actual visa. Perhaps a two-year diploma is more workable; I only have a 1 year technical diploma from a Uni, and although I haven't aggressively pursued getting across, it doesn't seem like I'd meet the requirements with it. Would be curious though, because the job market is truly shit here atm.
Just took a short road-trip down through Washington and Oregon, and really enjoyed my time. You're right in that I didn't think much about the difference until I got down to the Bay Area. I do think there is some sort of imbued mega-capitalist eat eat eat buy buy buy nature to many other places though that just sort of vibes me out sometimes, and maybe some airports are an example of this; almost a volume difference.
I noticed it for the first time when passing through the Minneapolis airport of all places. Felt like there was a hundred neon signs flashing at me to eat some burger or get a pedicure while waiting for my flight. Every table at a particular restaurant had an iPad right when they came out. While we have Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops, there's are basically theme parks. That kind of thing; it's not everywhere, in-fact it's probably a rare feeling I get, but it's a level of excess that's hard to feel comfortable around.
Family commitments, in some cases.
>The various stories I've seen about Japan - with low rents, falling house prices and large numbers of abandoned houses - seem to map with the falling Japanese population.
What you're hearing isn't accurate. Rents are going up in Tokyo, not down. Sure, there's a bunch of abandoned houses way out in remote rural areas, but no one wants to live there (for good reason). Housing prices do seem a lot more stable than in Anglosphere nations, however, and they're constantly building new housing (and knocking down old buildings to make way for them). Just like many other places, the population is concentrating in the big cities, so the population is generally rising there. However, unlike the US in particular, the Japanese yen has fallen a lot in value during the pandemic, and combined with recent inflation, this might have something to do with the recent rise in rents.
What you're hearing isn't accurate. Rents are going up in Tokyo, not down. Sure, there's a bunch of abandoned houses way out in remote rural areas, but no one wants to live there (for good reason). Housing prices do seem a lot more stable than in Anglosphere nations, however, and they're constantly building new housing (and knocking down old buildings to make way for them). Just like many other places, the population is concentrating in the big cities, so the population is generally rising there. However, unlike the US in particular, the Japanese yen has fallen a lot in value during the pandemic, and combined with recent inflation, this might have something to do with the recent rise in rents.
> It’s the whole western world at the same time. The same policies, the same social outcomes.
Cities were pretty similar to how they are now for all of human history except a brief period where things were weird after WW2 - see A Farewell to Alms and everything by Ricardo.
The US has one of the lowest Price to Rent ratios in the entire world.
And it's not like the US is rosey. There's really no where to look on the planet for somewhere that's doing things right beside maybe Singapore (which is a single city and has somewhat socialized the entire housing market) and Japan (which suffered through a lost 30 years and has a pretty rapidly declining population - possibly mainly as a result).
In both cases, I'd argue the US has a better housing market than either of those places. And again, it's still pretty sucky in most places in the US.
Cities were pretty similar to how they are now for all of human history except a brief period where things were weird after WW2 - see A Farewell to Alms and everything by Ricardo.
The US has one of the lowest Price to Rent ratios in the entire world.
And it's not like the US is rosey. There's really no where to look on the planet for somewhere that's doing things right beside maybe Singapore (which is a single city and has somewhat socialized the entire housing market) and Japan (which suffered through a lost 30 years and has a pretty rapidly declining population - possibly mainly as a result).
In both cases, I'd argue the US has a better housing market than either of those places. And again, it's still pretty sucky in most places in the US.
>Who is actually in control here? Is it blind forces pushing us to an inevitable outcome? The Illuminati? Lizard people?
Nobody. If you wanted to point fingers though, then the reason nothing gets done is because "grandma". Not because grandma is some evil conspirator but rather because this is used to silence arguments by saying "you are hurting the weak, don't you feel ashamed?"
Honestly, I don't believe there is a solution that can be achieved through democratic vote because the only people that are being hurt are people who don't get to vote, aka children who will need a home in the future or migrants who are about to move.
Some form of private land trust will have to do a georgist experiment and reimburse tenants as some form of UBI. 50% of the profits will be reinvested, 50% reimbursed.
Nobody. If you wanted to point fingers though, then the reason nothing gets done is because "grandma". Not because grandma is some evil conspirator but rather because this is used to silence arguments by saying "you are hurting the weak, don't you feel ashamed?"
Honestly, I don't believe there is a solution that can be achieved through democratic vote because the only people that are being hurt are people who don't get to vote, aka children who will need a home in the future or migrants who are about to move.
Some form of private land trust will have to do a georgist experiment and reimburse tenants as some form of UBI. 50% of the profits will be reinvested, 50% reimbursed.
Something like 10-50 of the population worldwide, depending on where/how you measure, moved from rural areas to cities since WW2. This completely upended the large scale population density situation that had existed for millennia. Also, as I'm sure anyone in California or Texas will tell you, there are 1) only so many good places to build and/or 2) so far someone is willing to commute. There is lots of land available to build on 4 hours from San Francisco at pretty reasonable prices (I looked at a 2.5 acre triangle of land with a seasonal creek on it for $40,000), but nobody will pay $900/sq ft for a house that far from their office, even if they WFH 4 days a week.
almost trivial to build upward, yet it's prohibited by zoning.
also, people getting surprised by the continuation of urbanization is ridiculous (but also a complete fucking tragedy).
also, people getting surprised by the continuation of urbanization is ridiculous (but also a complete fucking tragedy).
> since the 70s
Is part of the problem that we think the 70s was normal and not the outlier?
https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco...
Certainly there have been a couple recent bubbles, but even as recently as 2012 we were basically within the bounds of the long-term normal.
I'd like to say it's a supply problem, and demographics does support that argument to some extent, but the fact that it involves most of the western world makes me think it may have to do with monetary policy.
Is part of the problem that we think the 70s was normal and not the outlier?
https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco...
Certainly there have been a couple recent bubbles, but even as recently as 2012 we were basically within the bounds of the long-term normal.
I'd like to say it's a supply problem, and demographics does support that argument to some extent, but the fact that it involves most of the western world makes me think it may have to do with monetary policy.
> I'd like to say it's a supply problem
It is to the extent that various laws and regulations prevent or strongly disincentivize new construction, yes.
> the fact that it involves most of the western world makes me think it may have to do with monetary policy
It does. Mortgage loans have always been one of the primary places that governments choose to put newly printed money. The ostensible purpose of this is to make it easier for people to own homes, but what it actually does is bid up home prices to the point where consumers are no better off than they were before, but financial institutions and other corporate interests make a nice extra profit. It's similar to the way the easy availability of financial aid for college has not actually made it easier for people to go to the college of their choice (indeed, admission rates to many colleges have sharply declined as financial aid becomes more available), it's just transferred more wealth to the colleges from taxpayers.
It is to the extent that various laws and regulations prevent or strongly disincentivize new construction, yes.
> the fact that it involves most of the western world makes me think it may have to do with monetary policy
It does. Mortgage loans have always been one of the primary places that governments choose to put newly printed money. The ostensible purpose of this is to make it easier for people to own homes, but what it actually does is bid up home prices to the point where consumers are no better off than they were before, but financial institutions and other corporate interests make a nice extra profit. It's similar to the way the easy availability of financial aid for college has not actually made it easier for people to go to the college of their choice (indeed, admission rates to many colleges have sharply declined as financial aid becomes more available), it's just transferred more wealth to the colleges from taxpayers.
> did we all just happen to make the exact same decisions in lock step since the 70s by incredible coincidence?
It might have been a combination of circumstances and intellectual tides turning. The 70ties saw stagflation everywhere, which led to a decade of economic problems that couldn't be fixed with existing, socialist policies. Finally, voters everywhere (starting with Thatcher in UK ) decided it's time to try something else.
Part of it might also have been a disillusionment with big leftist ideas in general - in the late seventies, there was enough reliable information coming from USSR and China to make it clear that anything resembling communism (a holy grail for much of the left back then) is an unmitigated disaster. People started to realise that capitalism, much like democracy, might be bad, but is better than all the alternatives.
It might have been a combination of circumstances and intellectual tides turning. The 70ties saw stagflation everywhere, which led to a decade of economic problems that couldn't be fixed with existing, socialist policies. Finally, voters everywhere (starting with Thatcher in UK ) decided it's time to try something else.
Part of it might also have been a disillusionment with big leftist ideas in general - in the late seventies, there was enough reliable information coming from USSR and China to make it clear that anything resembling communism (a holy grail for much of the left back then) is an unmitigated disaster. People started to realise that capitalism, much like democracy, might be bad, but is better than all the alternatives.
The interesting thing is that Russia and China are capitalistic now, and they both manage to output a huge amount of high rise housing for sale.
Makes one wonder whether capitalism is actually compatible with democracy.
Makes one wonder whether capitalism is actually compatible with democracy.
If you believe Karl Marx then the answer is no: capitalism is incompatible with democracy, because of the basic human nature. If you allow people to vote, they will vote to take money from the rich and give it to them for free. Or for government to create money out of thin air, and give them away.
Karl was proven wrong recently by the Swiss though, who voted against UBI in a referendum.
I can't see a problem here. It only happens because (slightly) more than half of voters are happy with their housing situation and prefer it stay the way it is (that is, perpetually increasing prices, so they can earn equity => retire). They consciously vote for people who ensures just that.
There is no failure of democracy here, but rather a good indication of it's strength.
There is no failure of democracy here, but rather a good indication of it's strength.
It's true that the people are getting what they're voting for, but I wouldn't call this "not a failure of democracy", when the voters are causing their society to decay and die slowly because of their own short-sightedness.
However, we haven't exactly seen better systems of governance, plus not all democratic societies are filled with such short-sighted idiots like we see in the US, and those societies are doing much better long-term and stability-wise.
However, we haven't exactly seen better systems of governance, plus not all democratic societies are filled with such short-sighted idiots like we see in the US, and those societies are doing much better long-term and stability-wise.
How is this short-sightedness? Voters are voting for what's best for them, and it is indeed best for them. There are only two ways of fixing it: cancel democracy (in a dictatorship no one gives a damn about what people want, and developers make max profit by building everything they want), or cancel market economy, so the housing can't be sold or bought and the Party distributes it as it sees fit. Both looks to me worse than what we have today.
Cruel explanation: there is no way of organising society that's good for more than a half of people.
Cruel explanation: there is no way of organising society that's good for more than a half of people.
Nice false dichotomy you got there.
> Can’t we figure out what we actually want as societies, and make policy that matches it?
Not in a democracy, not when respecting free market and property. But they are able to do it in China.
Not in a democracy, not when respecting free market and property. But they are able to do it in China.
There's an essay written on this: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
It's not coincidence, and it's not conspiracy. It's zeitgeist, and people seeing one place do something and decide that's a good idea, and people following everything from scientific (and pseudoscientific) studies that came out around the time, to philosophical works published around the time, to all of the above that were old but re-popularized around the time.
You can just as easily ask "why was there a rise of right-wing nationalist and fascist sentiment throughout the Western world in the mid-to-late 2010s?" There's no grand conspiracy to any of it, and looking for one is likely to lead you down exactly the road that far too many conspiracy theorists have gone recently.
And, um, closely related, be aware that the "lizard people rule the world" thing isn't just a funny joke. It's deeply and inextricably rooted in a raft of antisemitic tropes, slurs, and propaganda going back...I forget exactly how long, but at least many decades. In fact, in general, when you encounter any conspiracy theory that posits a shadowy group of people secretly ruling the world, the chances are nearly 100% that you can trace it back to a version where that "shadowy group" is explicitly Jews. This is a big part of why conspiracy theorists have a tendency to find themselves in a pipeline to fascism.
You can just as easily ask "why was there a rise of right-wing nationalist and fascist sentiment throughout the Western world in the mid-to-late 2010s?" There's no grand conspiracy to any of it, and looking for one is likely to lead you down exactly the road that far too many conspiracy theorists have gone recently.
And, um, closely related, be aware that the "lizard people rule the world" thing isn't just a funny joke. It's deeply and inextricably rooted in a raft of antisemitic tropes, slurs, and propaganda going back...I forget exactly how long, but at least many decades. In fact, in general, when you encounter any conspiracy theory that posits a shadowy group of people secretly ruling the world, the chances are nearly 100% that you can trace it back to a version where that "shadowy group" is explicitly Jews. This is a big part of why conspiracy theorists have a tendency to find themselves in a pipeline to fascism.
The entire world was (and still is, to some extent) horribly racist. Every nation, institution and venerable principle you hold sacred has horrible racism lurking in its very bones, if you dig deep enough. You can’t, therefore, dismiss anything on that basis alone. Argue with an issue on its merits alone; to attack the supposed secret origin of an issue is equivalent to an ad hominem argument.
Also, alternative explanation of the lizard people thing: <http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8600>
Also, alternative explanation of the lizard people thing: <http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8600>
What if the entire world is mostly rational, and it is the HN crowd / snowflakes from the richest US suburbs who are bonkers?
Ah, yes; the good old "everything is impure, which means that everything is equally bad, so it doesn't matter if I do/support bad things, because I have no choice!"
Yeah, no. That doesn't fly.
There's a massive difference between, say, "the fact that I am a person of European descent living in upstate NY is only possible because of the genocide of and racism against generations of Native Americans; therefore, my entire existence is predicated on structural racism" and "many, many groups have vilified Jewish people for centuries for a variety of reasons (that are out of scope of this discussion); that vilification has led to ostracism and genocide on numerous occasions and still does to this day, frequently based entirely on completely false stereotypes; the propagation of those stereotypes still to this day leads real people to choose to ostracize and murder Jewish people; "lizard people who rule the world" is one of those stereotypes, and participating in its propagation does actual, measurable harm to Jewish people."
Yeah, no. That doesn't fly.
There's a massive difference between, say, "the fact that I am a person of European descent living in upstate NY is only possible because of the genocide of and racism against generations of Native Americans; therefore, my entire existence is predicated on structural racism" and "many, many groups have vilified Jewish people for centuries for a variety of reasons (that are out of scope of this discussion); that vilification has led to ostracism and genocide on numerous occasions and still does to this day, frequently based entirely on completely false stereotypes; the propagation of those stereotypes still to this day leads real people to choose to ostracize and murder Jewish people; "lizard people who rule the world" is one of those stereotypes, and participating in its propagation does actual, measurable harm to Jewish people."
You are willfully mischaracterizing my statement. Of course everything has different degrees of badness. But everything has enough badness for it to be dismissed just as easily as you dismissed the lizard people theory as a secret racist conspiracy.
I’m curious how far this stretches. Do you claim that “They Live” is antisemitic?
I’m curious how far this stretches. Do you claim that “They Live” is antisemitic?
It not nearly as universal as you think.
It’s just the natural development of capitalism, as its internal contradictions generate worse and worse crises. The ruling class (the ones that own most capital) are disincentivised from changing the system, since any effective change would require them not be the ruling class anymore.
The way out is revolution, where the working class become the ruling class. We may yet see that in our lifetimes in several countries.
The way out is revolution, where the working class become the ruling class. We may yet see that in our lifetimes in several countries.
Recommend this book: https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/164-democracy-agai...
The developed world has one great example of functional housing policy: Japan.
A single policy that allows for unique neighborhoods, affordable houses, supports small businesses, and enables walkable cities.
Just.... do what we know already works.
For anyone not familiar, here is a primer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk
A single policy that allows for unique neighborhoods, affordable houses, supports small businesses, and enables walkable cities.
Just.... do what we know already works.
For anyone not familiar, here is a primer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk
Housing has become more affordable in Japan about the same time as the country completed its demographic transition and its population began to decline.
Personally, I'd prefer my country do something that works faster than waiting for people to die. But yeah, on the other side of the curve, anything you try works like magic.
Personally, I'd prefer my country do something that works faster than waiting for people to die. But yeah, on the other side of the curve, anything you try works like magic.
So much is possible in Japan due to the high trust and high conformity culture.
I've lived in JP and Australia and the type of dense living that can be very nice in JP would be absolutely miserable in AU, due mostly to the people.
Singapore also has a functional housing policy, not perfect but pretty good:
https://youtu.be/3dBaEo4QplQ
https://youtu.be/3dBaEo4QplQ
Another primer if you still have any doubt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUFZ1_fC3Kw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUFZ1_fC3Kw
This is a terrible example as Japan is demographically imploding. If you buy a house in Japan it’s worth less over time.
That's exactly how it should be. Housing is a consumable, not an investment.
Why would you think that? A well built house can last hundreds of years. Why should it not be an investment?
It makes absolutely no sense to put any kind of money into something that one day will be worthless - like I read that it happens in Japan that on average a house is worthless after about 40 years.
It makes absolutely no sense to put any kind of money into something that one day will be worthless - like I read that it happens in Japan that on average a house is worthless after about 40 years.
> It makes absolutely no sense to put any kind of money into something that one day will be worthless
Cars, TVs, bicycles, the vast majority of furniture.
> like I read that it happens in Japan that on average a house is worthless after about 40 years.
And if you rent a place you "lose" all your money the moment you move out of it.
If my mortgage payment was cut in half but in return my house didn't appreciate in value, that would be a net win for me since I could dump more money into other investment vehicles.
Heck, just reducing the amount of friction of moving would introduce huge positive changes.
If houses in nice cities didn't cost over a million, people could move away from bad lawmakers!
Cars, TVs, bicycles, the vast majority of furniture.
> like I read that it happens in Japan that on average a house is worthless after about 40 years.
And if you rent a place you "lose" all your money the moment you move out of it.
If my mortgage payment was cut in half but in return my house didn't appreciate in value, that would be a net win for me since I could dump more money into other investment vehicles.
Heck, just reducing the amount of friction of moving would introduce huge positive changes.
If houses in nice cities didn't cost over a million, people could move away from bad lawmakers!
> Cars, TVs, bicycles, the vast majority of furniture.
These are consumables. Except maybe for the car if its something that one day can be worth a lot of money because it is nice. Like a '67 Mustang :)
> If houses in nice cities didn't cost over a million, people could move away from bad lawmakers!
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I see a benefit having a nice city and somehow a high house price is what you pay to live in a nice city.
These are consumables. Except maybe for the car if its something that one day can be worth a lot of money because it is nice. Like a '67 Mustang :)
> If houses in nice cities didn't cost over a million, people could move away from bad lawmakers!
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I see a benefit having a nice city and somehow a high house price is what you pay to live in a nice city.
> I don't understand what you are trying to say.
I own a house, because houses cost so damn much, and are so hard to find, and mortgage rates have increased, realistically I cannot change a house for a long time.
This means my job mobility is limited, I am stuck finding work in my local area.
It also means if I disagree with local politics, well too bad, I can't vote with my feet.
Many people are in this same situation.
People who are poor and stuck in cities with few prospects, cannot realistically move to coastal cities with higher paying jobs because of how high housing prices are.
Traditionally if people wanted to have better opportunities, escape corrupt small town politics, or just get away from abusive situations, they moved to a big city.
Housing is so absurdly expensive, none of that can happen anymore.
> I see a benefit having a nice city and somehow a high house price is what you pay to live in a nice city.
That is a new thing. For ages NYC had cheap dives artists could rent out, Seattle had basements musicians could rent out.
Heck for over a century NYC was a beacon around the world for people who wanted a better life, better opportunities. Now you'd better be in finance, tech, or already have a rent controlled unit.
People traveled across the country for the opportunities that San Francisco offered, a fresh start in a beautiful state.
That hope, that potential for a brighter future, is gone, largely because housing is so damn expensive.
Historically good cities have been affordable in America, but the problem with housing policies it is benefits current homeowners (such as myself!) to have housing stock stay small and limited.
But those policies hold back the entire country.
I own a house, because houses cost so damn much, and are so hard to find, and mortgage rates have increased, realistically I cannot change a house for a long time.
This means my job mobility is limited, I am stuck finding work in my local area.
It also means if I disagree with local politics, well too bad, I can't vote with my feet.
Many people are in this same situation.
People who are poor and stuck in cities with few prospects, cannot realistically move to coastal cities with higher paying jobs because of how high housing prices are.
Traditionally if people wanted to have better opportunities, escape corrupt small town politics, or just get away from abusive situations, they moved to a big city.
Housing is so absurdly expensive, none of that can happen anymore.
> I see a benefit having a nice city and somehow a high house price is what you pay to live in a nice city.
That is a new thing. For ages NYC had cheap dives artists could rent out, Seattle had basements musicians could rent out.
Heck for over a century NYC was a beacon around the world for people who wanted a better life, better opportunities. Now you'd better be in finance, tech, or already have a rent controlled unit.
People traveled across the country for the opportunities that San Francisco offered, a fresh start in a beautiful state.
That hope, that potential for a brighter future, is gone, largely because housing is so damn expensive.
Historically good cities have been affordable in America, but the problem with housing policies it is benefits current homeowners (such as myself!) to have housing stock stay small and limited.
But those policies hold back the entire country.
>These are consumables
What do you think housing is? Some perpetual motion machine? Of course a house is a consumable.
What do you think housing is? Some perpetual motion machine? Of course a house is a consumable.
While I wouldn't call it consumable, you do have to put money into it if you want to keep it working and in good state
But the house part is not an investment. It's the land that appreciates in value, the value isn't in a bunch of bricks and boards that sits, it's the location of the piece of land.
But the house part is not an investment. It's the land that appreciates in value, the value isn't in a bunch of bricks and boards that sits, it's the location of the piece of land.
The most highly valued residential land only has high value because of supporting infrastructure and other people.
Be it incredible schools, or a high quality of life from density, or proximity to culture, value comes from the things people build around houses, not the houses themselves.
Proof of this is trivial, huge mansions in the middle of nowhere cost less than a studio apartment in a desirable area.
Be it incredible schools, or a high quality of life from density, or proximity to culture, value comes from the things people build around houses, not the houses themselves.
Proof of this is trivial, huge mansions in the middle of nowhere cost less than a studio apartment in a desirable area.
Europe and America are also demographically imploding, but real estate just keeps getting more expensive. Japan is a great example.
Note: I originally said Britain built 30k houses last year, which commenters have corrected. Thank you!
I don't really understand all this. Surely the main reason for a lack of housing is the difference between house demand (e.g. Britain took in 606k people in net immigration last year) compared to house supply (Britain built I think around 200k houses last year).
The state shouldn't need to build houses (in fact it doesn't; it just uses your tax money to pay private companies to build houses). It should just make the building and zoning rules simple enough that it's possible to make money from building houses and selling them, and let people get on with it.
I don't really understand all this. Surely the main reason for a lack of housing is the difference between house demand (e.g. Britain took in 606k people in net immigration last year) compared to house supply (Britain built I think around 200k houses last year).
The state shouldn't need to build houses (in fact it doesn't; it just uses your tax money to pay private companies to build houses). It should just make the building and zoning rules simple enough that it's possible to make money from building houses and selling them, and let people get on with it.
> The state shouldn't need to build houses (in fact it doesn't; it just uses your tax money to pay private companies to build houses). It should just make the building and zoning rules simple enough that it's possible to make money from building houses and selling them, and let people get on with it.
This is the modern wisdom in the west - it's the approach taken by many governments since the Reagan era (not just in the UK) and it's demonstrably unsuccessful in almost every metric except one: votes. Which is the only reason it continues. It panders to those who already hold assets, while doing very little to move the dial for those who need shelter.
Migration is not a new phenomenon; citing it as an excuse for the utter failure of modern housing policy is disingenuous.
This is the modern wisdom in the west - it's the approach taken by many governments since the Reagan era (not just in the UK) and it's demonstrably unsuccessful in almost every metric except one: votes. Which is the only reason it continues. It panders to those who already hold assets, while doing very little to move the dial for those who need shelter.
Migration is not a new phenomenon; citing it as an excuse for the utter failure of modern housing policy is disingenuous.
I'm confused... Are you arguing that zoning, red-tape, and generally anti-development politicians and voters aren't the fundamental problem here? How exactly do you envision a government housing program to side-step all of the above issues? Do you think voters who fight relentlessly to block development feel differently about public housing? How do you expect it to get funded even, when a single unit of "affordable housing" costs ~$1m to build in a place like San Francisco?
> Are you arguing that zoning, red-tape, and generally anti-development politicians and voters aren't the fundamental problem here?
Minus the leading language (as I presume these so-called "anti-development" politicians don't self-define as such), yes, this is what I'm arguing.
> Do you think voters who fight relentlessly to block development feel differently about public housing?
I believe the tales of such voters are highly overstated, a really common red-herring used by advocates of private developer subsidy to deflect criticism. Do NIMBYs exist? Of course. But their impact is overstated, and overconflated with genuine concerns: there are valid reasons to object to new developments, though these have a tendency to be lumped in with less valid objectors for political gain/expediency.
> How do you expect it to get funded even, when a single unit of "affordable housing" costs ~$1m to build in a place like San Francisco?
Have you ever stopped to think about why it costs $1m to build such a unit in SF in 2023? About what system of incentives lead to the current status quo? I can assure you it wasn't decades of publicly-run projects.
Minus the leading language (as I presume these so-called "anti-development" politicians don't self-define as such), yes, this is what I'm arguing.
> Do you think voters who fight relentlessly to block development feel differently about public housing?
I believe the tales of such voters are highly overstated, a really common red-herring used by advocates of private developer subsidy to deflect criticism. Do NIMBYs exist? Of course. But their impact is overstated, and overconflated with genuine concerns: there are valid reasons to object to new developments, though these have a tendency to be lumped in with less valid objectors for political gain/expediency.
> How do you expect it to get funded even, when a single unit of "affordable housing" costs ~$1m to build in a place like San Francisco?
Have you ever stopped to think about why it costs $1m to build such a unit in SF in 2023? About what system of incentives lead to the current status quo? I can assure you it wasn't decades of publicly-run projects.
> I believe the tales of such voters are highly overstated, a really common red-herring used by advocates of private developer subsidy to deflect criticism.
I'm not familiar with Ireland or the UK, but for the US at least, this is absolutely false. I'm most familiar with San Francisco so let's look at that as an example. Why do you think it takes nearly 2 years to get permitting done for housing here? Why do you think you need to pay $100ks in fees just to break ground? Why do you think all of the housing built over the last 20 years has been located in one part of the city (SOMA)? Why do you think our Supervisors are so reluctant to adopt by-right zoning and ministerial review processes? Why was huge swaths of the city down-zoned in the 70s? Hell, why do you think California literally has an amendment to their constitution (article 34) prohibiting the construction of low-income housing without explicit approval from local residents? These aren't the demands of private developers, but the demands of influential neighborhood associations, unions (SEIU, CBTC, etc), and average homeowners who like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change.
> Have you ever stopped to think about why it costs $1m to build such a unit in SF in 2023? About what system of incentives lead to the current status quo? I can assure you it wasn't decades of publicly-run projects.
Absolutely. There are of course many factors, but a big one are the various road-blocks politicians put up, and the concessions (rents) they extract from projects for their preferred special interests. These are things that don't just go away once private developers are out of the mix.
Have you ever stopped to think why the market hasn't been able to produce the necessary supply of housing? It's not because they aren't interested in making money.
I'm not familiar with Ireland or the UK, but for the US at least, this is absolutely false. I'm most familiar with San Francisco so let's look at that as an example. Why do you think it takes nearly 2 years to get permitting done for housing here? Why do you think you need to pay $100ks in fees just to break ground? Why do you think all of the housing built over the last 20 years has been located in one part of the city (SOMA)? Why do you think our Supervisors are so reluctant to adopt by-right zoning and ministerial review processes? Why was huge swaths of the city down-zoned in the 70s? Hell, why do you think California literally has an amendment to their constitution (article 34) prohibiting the construction of low-income housing without explicit approval from local residents? These aren't the demands of private developers, but the demands of influential neighborhood associations, unions (SEIU, CBTC, etc), and average homeowners who like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change.
> Have you ever stopped to think about why it costs $1m to build such a unit in SF in 2023? About what system of incentives lead to the current status quo? I can assure you it wasn't decades of publicly-run projects.
Absolutely. There are of course many factors, but a big one are the various road-blocks politicians put up, and the concessions (rents) they extract from projects for their preferred special interests. These are things that don't just go away once private developers are out of the mix.
Have you ever stopped to think why the market hasn't been able to produce the necessary supply of housing? It's not because they aren't interested in making money.
> Hell, why do you think California literally has an amendment to their constitution (article 34) prohibiting the construction of low-income housing without explicit approval from local residents? These aren't the demands of private developers, but the demands of influential neighborhood associations, unions (SEIU, CBTC, etc), and average homeowners who like their neighborhood as it is and don't want it to change.
I may get downvoted for this, but if I were to live in a nice neighborhood with a nice view I will be damned if I would say yes to any construction that I see it could ruin my neighborhood or take my view away. Yes, NIMBY attitude, but a lot of people desire to live in nice places.
I may get downvoted for this, but if I were to live in a nice neighborhood with a nice view I will be damned if I would say yes to any construction that I see it could ruin my neighborhood or take my view away. Yes, NIMBY attitude, but a lot of people desire to live in nice places.
I think the abstract point is that you bought something at a certain price and would like it to not be devalued, by whatever criteria you used to value it at that price in the first place.
I cannot comment on other countries, but this is clearly not practiced in the US. The US has not simplified building and zoning rules or made them more permissive. The US follows the third option: do nothing and hope it fixes itself.
> Migration is not a new phenomenon; citing it as an excuse for the utter failure of modern housing policy is disingenuous.
You say it's a failure but for those who own land or have tenants - including the average homeowner, it's a success. It's also a success for house builders, of course.
From [1]:
> In total 115 MPs across all parties are landlords, accounting for 18 per cent of the House of Commons. This compares to around three per cent of the UK adult population who are landlords.
It's in their interests.
On top of that, the supply is dwarfed by demand even before all that migration, which drives the "success" I outlined above, the high inward migration has kept wages low and reduced the need for the kind of large capital investment that would be needed to replace cheap labour.
Again, the kind of wealthy people who are landowners benefit from this, perhaps in this instance not the average homeowner, though there was that woman on Question Time who wondered where they'd find people to make her Pret coffee[2].
The real failures here are the failure to understand the interests of all the parties involved: those with land (high migration drives demand, increases wealth and suppresses outgoings like wages and R&D), and the interests of those without (stronger negotiating position in labour market, lower demand for housing). The average Joe should oppose large scale unskilled migration with all their might, if they want a home, enough doctors, better working conditions etc.
Strangely enough, the media, largely owned by very rich people or run by government aligned interests, seem to be against that. It's a mystery how so many people are called racists for being against migration levels unparalleled in history with so many deleterious effects. A total mystery.
[1] https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2021/7/reveale...
[2] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-pre...
You say it's a failure but for those who own land or have tenants - including the average homeowner, it's a success. It's also a success for house builders, of course.
From [1]:
> In total 115 MPs across all parties are landlords, accounting for 18 per cent of the House of Commons. This compares to around three per cent of the UK adult population who are landlords.
It's in their interests.
On top of that, the supply is dwarfed by demand even before all that migration, which drives the "success" I outlined above, the high inward migration has kept wages low and reduced the need for the kind of large capital investment that would be needed to replace cheap labour.
Again, the kind of wealthy people who are landowners benefit from this, perhaps in this instance not the average homeowner, though there was that woman on Question Time who wondered where they'd find people to make her Pret coffee[2].
The real failures here are the failure to understand the interests of all the parties involved: those with land (high migration drives demand, increases wealth and suppresses outgoings like wages and R&D), and the interests of those without (stronger negotiating position in labour market, lower demand for housing). The average Joe should oppose large scale unskilled migration with all their might, if they want a home, enough doctors, better working conditions etc.
Strangely enough, the media, largely owned by very rich people or run by government aligned interests, seem to be against that. It's a mystery how so many people are called racists for being against migration levels unparalleled in history with so many deleterious effects. A total mystery.
[1] https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2021/7/reveale...
[2] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bbc-question-time-pre...
> It's in their interests.
More complicated than that. You should try reading Isabel Hardman's book "Why we get the politicians we deserve".
Running for MP can bankrupt you if you haven't got a passive source of income.
More complicated than that. You should try reading Isabel Hardman's book "Why we get the politicians we deserve".
Running for MP can bankrupt you if you haven't got a passive source of income.
> More complicated than that. You should try reading Isabel Hardman's book "Why we get the politicians we deserve".
I'm left thinking "why?"
I'm left thinking "why?"
The book covers what is necessary economically to run to be an MP.
> Running for MP can bankrupt you if you haven't got a passive source of income.
MPs become landlords for the passive income that is necessary given that running to be an MP can leave you destitute.
Landlords aren't (usually) becoming MPs in order to vote for more favourable conditions for landlords. Indeed, there have been many policies detrimental to landlords e.g. removal of mortgage interest income tax relief.
> Running for MP can bankrupt you if you haven't got a passive source of income.
MPs become landlords for the passive income that is necessary given that running to be an MP can leave you destitute.
Landlords aren't (usually) becoming MPs in order to vote for more favourable conditions for landlords. Indeed, there have been many policies detrimental to landlords e.g. removal of mortgage interest income tax relief.
Landlords don't need to become MPs in order for MPs to become landlords or for their interests to emerge as it would with any other contingent with shared interests making up 18% of sitting MPs.
> Indeed, there have been many policies detrimental to landlords e.g. removal of mortgage interest income tax relief.
For all we know there would have been more legislation of this kind if they hadn't been there.
Aside from that, why is it that, since the majority of MPs are aligned with major parties and major parties pay for prospective MPs to run, and since MPs are remunerated well above average and have lavish expenses compared to the rest of us, that they would become bankrupt?
On top of that, they can earn big money if they get into cabinet[1], and they don't even lose that much when they leave[2]:
> For MPs defeated at the 2019 election, the average loss-of-office payment was £5,250 – equivalent to just under one month of their £84,000 salary.
The average UK salary for that year (2019):
> The Office of National Statistics has released its provisional update of the UK Average Salary 2019, showing that the average full-time salary is £36,611 and average part-time salary is £12,495.
[1] https://news.sky.com/story/mps-second-jobs-why-it-pays-to-le...
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-medals-pa...
[3] https://www.findcourses.co.uk/inspiration/average-salaries-u...
> Indeed, there have been many policies detrimental to landlords e.g. removal of mortgage interest income tax relief.
For all we know there would have been more legislation of this kind if they hadn't been there.
Aside from that, why is it that, since the majority of MPs are aligned with major parties and major parties pay for prospective MPs to run, and since MPs are remunerated well above average and have lavish expenses compared to the rest of us, that they would become bankrupt?
On top of that, they can earn big money if they get into cabinet[1], and they don't even lose that much when they leave[2]:
> For MPs defeated at the 2019 election, the average loss-of-office payment was £5,250 – equivalent to just under one month of their £84,000 salary.
The average UK salary for that year (2019):
> The Office of National Statistics has released its provisional update of the UK Average Salary 2019, showing that the average full-time salary is £36,611 and average part-time salary is £12,495.
[1] https://news.sky.com/story/mps-second-jobs-why-it-pays-to-le...
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-medals-pa...
[3] https://www.findcourses.co.uk/inspiration/average-salaries-u...
Migration at these levels is absolutely a new phenomenon.
Most men have the capability to build a house themselves and with help of friends. What is needed is the release of land, plain and simple. The landed gentry have enormous amounts of real estate and they want high prices to release any part - this is their retirement plan for them, their children, and children's children.
Let workers buy land cheap and you will have a lower base level of housing cost, bringing the cost for all other housing down. Why would I want the government to rob me to build a house, when I could have built it myself if I hadn't been robbed?
Let workers buy land cheap and you will have a lower base level of housing cost, bringing the cost for all other housing down. Why would I want the government to rob me to build a house, when I could have built it myself if I hadn't been robbed?
It's easy to just down-vote my post and move on. But stop for a moment and think about it: Why is the lifetime output of even a highly skilled professional worth just a tiny fraction of what a land owner in the same community is worth from doing nothing? The land owner can sell a tiny piece of his estate every 20 years and live his whole life without contributing anything. And on the opposite side, those who are not landed will have to work hard their whole life and usually with nothing to show for it.
Go talk to everyday people and ask what their dream is. Except for winning the lottery, the dream of everybody is to buy real estate and live of rent and price increases. Not having a career, not creating a big and successful business. Those are fools errand and a waste of your life, because laws and governance are now all-in on making every aspect of the economy having the purpose of transferring wealth to the landed gentry.
Go talk to everyday people and ask what their dream is. Except for winning the lottery, the dream of everybody is to buy real estate and live of rent and price increases. Not having a career, not creating a big and successful business. Those are fools errand and a waste of your life, because laws and governance are now all-in on making every aspect of the economy having the purpose of transferring wealth to the landed gentry.
> Britain built I think around 30k houses last year
The latest house building statistics show that in the financial year ending March 2022 there were 204,530 dwellings completed in the UK.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/...
The latest house building statistics show that in the financial year ending March 2022 there were 204,530 dwellings completed in the UK.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/...
When you consider there are decades of under supply to make up for, this is still a paltry figure.
Still doesn't excuse quoting a wrong figure. I for one appreciate the correction.
Oh - fair. I can't remember where I got that figure from. It might've been a quarterly average.
I'll amend, but noting the change.
I'll amend, but noting the change.
The problem is land. Land is not a normal commodity. Nobody makes it - all land rights are derived ultimately through legal fiat and violence, not labor.
Somebody who consumes a lot of high value land doesnt create the conditions for making more like somebody who, say, buys a lot of cars. They just create more profits for nearby land owners. Hoarding drives more hoarding and higher prices in a positive feedback loop unless arrested via a tax.
The elites can accomodate their market dysfunction by building public housing. They can neuter this market dysfunction by applying a steep land value tax (or by increasing property taxes).
Or they can sit back and profit, parasitically extracting ever higher land rents from the real economy.
Somebody who consumes a lot of high value land doesnt create the conditions for making more like somebody who, say, buys a lot of cars. They just create more profits for nearby land owners. Hoarding drives more hoarding and higher prices in a positive feedback loop unless arrested via a tax.
The elites can accomodate their market dysfunction by building public housing. They can neuter this market dysfunction by applying a steep land value tax (or by increasing property taxes).
Or they can sit back and profit, parasitically extracting ever higher land rents from the real economy.
Land is fixed, but only valuable because of the location it is situated in.
And what happens as the location is not fixed.
You cannot make more land, but you can alter the value of locations with incentives and taxes and government programs.
Part of the solution could be governments shifting people and jobs around to secondary less popular cities.
Part of the solution could be governments shifting people and jobs around to secondary less popular cities.
Almost every company doesn't employ people in incredibly high price locations. They can't afford to. And some of the ones that can will sometimes move, but they'll do it for bottom up reasons, not for political, state-led ones.
Also, the big contributor is Zoom. If you can work from anywhere, as some jobs can because of Zoom, you can live anywhere.
Also, the big contributor is Zoom. If you can work from anywhere, as some jobs can because of Zoom, you can live anywhere.
There's a limited amount of space and a non-negligible portion of society are unable to afford market rates. When the state doesn't build accommodation, citizens end up transferring ludicrous amounts to private landlords to house foster children, asylum seekers, the poor, or the disabled.
The UK experimented with selling off it's social housing in the 70s. It was a colossal failure that has lead to the country having some of the worst housing stock in Europe, with renters paying more for less. Private landlords have been enriched at the expense of the wider society.
Without state intervention in housing regulation/supply we'd see shanty towns spring up fairly quickly, followed by violence. Refer to Champlain Towers, Grenfell Tower, or the collapsed luxury apartments in the Turkey earthquake to see what happens when the state does not do enough to ensure builders aren't building death traps.
The UK experimented with selling off it's social housing in the 70s. It was a colossal failure that has lead to the country having some of the worst housing stock in Europe, with renters paying more for less. Private landlords have been enriched at the expense of the wider society.
Without state intervention in housing regulation/supply we'd see shanty towns spring up fairly quickly, followed by violence. Refer to Champlain Towers, Grenfell Tower, or the collapsed luxury apartments in the Turkey earthquake to see what happens when the state does not do enough to ensure builders aren't building death traps.
> There's a limited amount of space and a non-negligible portion of society are unable to afford market rates. When the state doesn't build accommodation, citizens end up transferring ludicrous amounts to private landlords to house foster children, asylum seekers, the poor, or the disabled.
Space is limited by regulation and zoning. 90% of the UK is rural. Market rates are high because of the supply not matching the demand, or being allowed to match it. Asulym seekers make up a small amount (3%?) of the people who we take in - e.g. in 2022 we took in 606k people, but under 20k of them were asulum seekers.
> The UK experimented with selling off it's social housing in the 70s. It was a colossal failure that has lead to the country having some of the worst housing stock in Europe, with renters paying more for less.
The same number of people would need housing, regardless of whether the houses were privately owned or state owned.
> Without state intervention in housing regulation/supply we'd see shanty towns spring up fairly quickly, followed by violence. Refer to Champlain Towers, Grenfell Tower, or the collapsed luxury apartments in the Turkey earthquake to see what happens when the state does not do enough to ensure builders aren't building death traps.
I don't understand this. I didn't say no regulation. But there's a huge gap between that and making it incredibly difficult to build. Citing some basic anti-zero regulation argument in response to what I said is disheartening.
Space is limited by regulation and zoning. 90% of the UK is rural. Market rates are high because of the supply not matching the demand, or being allowed to match it. Asulym seekers make up a small amount (3%?) of the people who we take in - e.g. in 2022 we took in 606k people, but under 20k of them were asulum seekers.
> The UK experimented with selling off it's social housing in the 70s. It was a colossal failure that has lead to the country having some of the worst housing stock in Europe, with renters paying more for less.
The same number of people would need housing, regardless of whether the houses were privately owned or state owned.
> Without state intervention in housing regulation/supply we'd see shanty towns spring up fairly quickly, followed by violence. Refer to Champlain Towers, Grenfell Tower, or the collapsed luxury apartments in the Turkey earthquake to see what happens when the state does not do enough to ensure builders aren't building death traps.
I don't understand this. I didn't say no regulation. But there's a huge gap between that and making it incredibly difficult to build. Citing some basic anti-zero regulation argument in response to what I said is disheartening.
> Space is limited by regulation and zoning. 90% of the UK is rural. Market rates are high because of the supply not matching the demand, or being allowed to match it.
This does not square with the fact that private builders are leaving nearly half of approved developments unbuilt. It's almost like private builders are incentivised to squeeze the market rather than bring prices down.
> The same number of people would need housing, regardless of whether the houses were privately owned or state owned.
Publicly owned housing: The state makes an initial capital investment which it recoups through a low monthly rent payment. After 30 years the state only pays maintenance costs for the property, covered by the monthly rent. Any excess rent can be reinvested towards the cost of another unit.
Privately rented housing: The state pays market rate rents forever, burning the money. The private landlord pays off the mortgage and gets to pocket more of the money. There's no benefit to the state.
It's the same with social care. The government could build social care, instead we're paying up to £50k/week per child[0] towards some cunt's yacht.
And it's the same with the NHS. Nurses have a hard time and poor pay and some quit. The government then bring in an agency nurse, paying the agency 2-4x the salary of the NHS nurse that will have to babysit them because they aren't familiar with their ward and refusing to raise the rate of pay for their own nurses. The remaining nurses see this and some more quit, agency work pays more and you get to choose when you work. This spirals into a very avoidable staffing crisis.
> I don't understand this. I didn't say no regulation. But there's a huge gap between that and making it incredibly difficult to build. Citing some basic anti-zero regulation argument in response to what I said is disheartening.
I didn't claim you were arguing for no regulation, arguing that regulations should be made more lax in the face of those events is what's disheartening. Those disasters occurred because existing regulations were not sufficiently strict/enforced.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/18/english-coun...
This does not square with the fact that private builders are leaving nearly half of approved developments unbuilt. It's almost like private builders are incentivised to squeeze the market rather than bring prices down.
> The same number of people would need housing, regardless of whether the houses were privately owned or state owned.
Publicly owned housing: The state makes an initial capital investment which it recoups through a low monthly rent payment. After 30 years the state only pays maintenance costs for the property, covered by the monthly rent. Any excess rent can be reinvested towards the cost of another unit.
Privately rented housing: The state pays market rate rents forever, burning the money. The private landlord pays off the mortgage and gets to pocket more of the money. There's no benefit to the state.
It's the same with social care. The government could build social care, instead we're paying up to £50k/week per child[0] towards some cunt's yacht.
And it's the same with the NHS. Nurses have a hard time and poor pay and some quit. The government then bring in an agency nurse, paying the agency 2-4x the salary of the NHS nurse that will have to babysit them because they aren't familiar with their ward and refusing to raise the rate of pay for their own nurses. The remaining nurses see this and some more quit, agency work pays more and you get to choose when you work. This spirals into a very avoidable staffing crisis.
> I don't understand this. I didn't say no regulation. But there's a huge gap between that and making it incredibly difficult to build. Citing some basic anti-zero regulation argument in response to what I said is disheartening.
I didn't claim you were arguing for no regulation, arguing that regulations should be made more lax in the face of those events is what's disheartening. Those disasters occurred because existing regulations were not sufficiently strict/enforced.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/18/english-coun...
> It's almost like private builders are incentivised to squeeze the market rather than bring prices down.
Yes - incentivised by government regulations to do so, and moreover too disincentivised to build. If you can't make money by building, it's better to wait. No builder wants to stop building - money now is much better than money in the future - but enough government and local intervention will cause this.
The housing thing you've gone on a while, but basically if you remember the context, two comments up, I was replying to something that you're not arguing for, as far as I can tell, which is that if the government hadn't sold some houses it would have enough houses. This is not the case, and I don't think you've said it is.
> I didn't claim you were arguing for no regulation, arguing that regulations should be made more lax in the face of those events is what's disheartening. Those disasters occurred because existing regulations were not sufficiently strict/enforced.
Companies not obeying regulations in specific instances doesn't mean all regulations are good. Regulations are not a tower, with fire retardation regulations being piled on the stupid ones, and so removing the stupid ones would cause the ones you want to fall.
My fundamental bewilderment with this and some other comments is you're complaining about government-caused things, and you blame the private sector for it, and want the government to be in charge of more things, despite the evidence of your own eyes of how well the government does with what it already has.
Yes - incentivised by government regulations to do so, and moreover too disincentivised to build. If you can't make money by building, it's better to wait. No builder wants to stop building - money now is much better than money in the future - but enough government and local intervention will cause this.
The housing thing you've gone on a while, but basically if you remember the context, two comments up, I was replying to something that you're not arguing for, as far as I can tell, which is that if the government hadn't sold some houses it would have enough houses. This is not the case, and I don't think you've said it is.
> I didn't claim you were arguing for no regulation, arguing that regulations should be made more lax in the face of those events is what's disheartening. Those disasters occurred because existing regulations were not sufficiently strict/enforced.
Companies not obeying regulations in specific instances doesn't mean all regulations are good. Regulations are not a tower, with fire retardation regulations being piled on the stupid ones, and so removing the stupid ones would cause the ones you want to fall.
My fundamental bewilderment with this and some other comments is you're complaining about government-caused things, and you blame the private sector for it, and want the government to be in charge of more things, despite the evidence of your own eyes of how well the government does with what it already has.
> No builder wants to stop building - money now is much better than money in the future
This is plainly false in every way. Firstly, buildijg is an expense - why would you build now if you can put off the expense? Seocndly, market manipulation is as old as markets themselves.
This is plainly false in every way. Firstly, buildijg is an expense - why would you build now if you can put off the expense? Seocndly, market manipulation is as old as markets themselves.
> This is plainly false in every way. Firstly, buildijg is an expense - why would you build now if you can put off the expense?
It might be worth considering how, if that were true, anything that has a capital investment required of it ever gets done. Building is not an expense to a building company. What do you think the company does to generate revenue, if it's not building?
It might be worth considering how, if that were true, anything that has a capital investment required of it ever gets done. Building is not an expense to a building company. What do you think the company does to generate revenue, if it's not building?
If youre both managing a property portfolio as well as building on it, free capital gains for no work are a pretty good deal.
Sure, if you're a small builder you want to build ASAP for cash flow reasons. However over the past decade both the UK and Irish building markets have become dominated by REITs who do in fact benefit from increased land prices in the absence of building.
Sure, if you're a small builder you want to build ASAP for cash flow reasons. However over the past decade both the UK and Irish building markets have become dominated by REITs who do in fact benefit from increased land prices in the absence of building.
Yes, because of the regulatory and zoning environment. Of course they should do this - in an environment where it's more profitable to do nothing than to build, building companies should do nothing. The problem is the environment they exist in. Fix the environment, and they will build more.
> in an environment where it's more profitable to do nothing than to build, building companies should do nothing.
I mean, sortof. I get where you're coming from, but if a development has planning permission (i.e. it's allowed to be built) then it should be massively penalised if development doesn't begin pretty soon after this. As a society, it's problematic for a whole bunch of reasons to have companies sit on land that could provide housing when there's a shortage.
I mean, sortof. I get where you're coming from, but if a development has planning permission (i.e. it's allowed to be built) then it should be massively penalised if development doesn't begin pretty soon after this. As a society, it's problematic for a whole bunch of reasons to have companies sit on land that could provide housing when there's a shortage.
You don't fix government/zoning disincentives to do things with government disincentives to not do things.
It's just more time and money wasted on people to inspect and enforce and run appeals systems (what if they had a good reason for not starting?) and write and update rules (what do we count as a good reason?). All of this costs endless tax money that could've been spent on building or buying houses. Or, in 2023, just buying enough food.
Fix the underlying issues, and people will build.
It's just more time and money wasted on people to inspect and enforce and run appeals systems (what if they had a good reason for not starting?) and write and update rules (what do we count as a good reason?). All of this costs endless tax money that could've been spent on building or buying houses. Or, in 2023, just buying enough food.
Fix the underlying issues, and people will build.
You highlight a bunch of examples where government policy/implementation has failed miserably in the backdrop of higher and higher demand from it. I wonder how far this needs to stretch before we realise that the problem isn't that the government doesn't behave correctly, but that the whole idea that a government is a good allocator of capital and resources is flawed.
> There's a limited amount of space
So build denser, taller housing. We sprawl massively compared to developments on the continent.
> a non-negligible portion of society are unable to afford market rates
If we increase supply, market rates will fall. That's how markets work.
Therein lies the real problem, of course: real estate investors with existing holdings don't want the rates to fall, and they have influence over how much new stock gets built.
> It was a colossal failure
To be clear, the failure was not in the act of selling itself, but in the decision to not reinvest the proceeds into new housing stock. This is the part that made the housing problem worse instead of better.
So build denser, taller housing. We sprawl massively compared to developments on the continent.
> a non-negligible portion of society are unable to afford market rates
If we increase supply, market rates will fall. That's how markets work.
Therein lies the real problem, of course: real estate investors with existing holdings don't want the rates to fall, and they have influence over how much new stock gets built.
> It was a colossal failure
To be clear, the failure was not in the act of selling itself, but in the decision to not reinvest the proceeds into new housing stock. This is the part that made the housing problem worse instead of better.
> To be clear, the failure was not in the act of selling itself, but in the decision to not reinvest the proceeds into new housing stock. This is the part that made the housing problem worse instead of better.
The kind of mass sell-off that occurred could only be considered a massive failure. Selling individual properties at market value when the intention is to reinvest that money is clearly without objection. But to this day, the government offers discounts of up to 70% on social housing. It is a direct transfer of public wealth into private ownership and it has invariably led to worse outcomes where it has occurred. Social housing, royal mail, and water infrastructure are the obvious examples but less obviously there's PFIs, energy, and the nhs.
The kind of mass sell-off that occurred could only be considered a massive failure. Selling individual properties at market value when the intention is to reinvest that money is clearly without objection. But to this day, the government offers discounts of up to 70% on social housing. It is a direct transfer of public wealth into private ownership and it has invariably led to worse outcomes where it has occurred. Social housing, royal mail, and water infrastructure are the obvious examples but less obviously there's PFIs, energy, and the nhs.
> It is a direct transfer of public wealth into private ownership and it has invariably led to worse outcomes where it has occurred. Social housing, royal mail, and water infrastructure are the obvious examples but less obviously there's PFIs, energy, and the nhs.
This is too broad a category. You can't criticise people owning homes by using examples of private(ish) ownership of infrastructure.
This is too broad a category. You can't criticise people owning homes by using examples of private(ish) ownership of infrastructure.
water companies have build Zero new water reservoirs in the entire 50 years of their existance. In 10 yeats London will start running out of water and we will have to bail them out like we bailed out the banks.
> the decision to not reinvest the proceeds into new housing stock
This wouldn't have mattered, I think. The houses were sold at a massive discount, IIRC.
This wouldn't have mattered, I think. The houses were sold at a massive discount, IIRC.
> Private landlords have been enriched at the expense of the wider society.
We are literally subsidising the least productive "profession" in society, to the tune of billions. It's an absolute joke.
We are literally subsidising the least productive "profession" in society, to the tune of billions. It's an absolute joke.
They aren't being subsidised. They're being paid to rent out their property.
And what would happen if the government passed a law saying that housing benefit could no longer be paid to private landlords? Looking over the instant wide spread homelessness, you would get a sharp spike in landlords either selling their houses or going bankrupt because their business model is no longer viable. Without that government money, they can’t pay their buy to let mortgages and the whole thing collapses - so they’re essentially getting property for free, paid for by the government, all because they managed to have enough capital to get in on the racket at the ground floor. Not to mention all the other less indirect ways the government passes laws to benefit landlords and property owners at the expense of renters.
I don't live in Britain and I don't know why too few houses are built there.
I know something about the place where I live, which I'll not name because I don't think it's that special. Specifically, that houses are built if that seems profitable, or at the very least if the bank thinks the builder can earn enough to pay back the loan.
The organisation that build/rebuilt/renovated the buildings across the street from me expected to earn that investment back in very roughly half a century. They considered it possible that they'd earn their investment back in 30 years, but unlikely. They managed to secure financing, though, and did the building. Not sure how they plan to pay the bank on time.
You'll not be surprised to hear that this place too suffers from a lack of newly built housing.
I know something about the place where I live, which I'll not name because I don't think it's that special. Specifically, that houses are built if that seems profitable, or at the very least if the bank thinks the builder can earn enough to pay back the loan.
The organisation that build/rebuilt/renovated the buildings across the street from me expected to earn that investment back in very roughly half a century. They considered it possible that they'd earn their investment back in 30 years, but unlikely. They managed to secure financing, though, and did the building. Not sure how they plan to pay the bank on time.
You'll not be surprised to hear that this place too suffers from a lack of newly built housing.
For comparison, Canada which has a population of 40M vs Britain's 86M built 286k homes in 2021. We took in 400K immigrants and 630K non-permanent residents in 2022. Not sure if those two numbers are additive, since I presume many non-permanent residents eventually become immigrants.
The average price of a house in Canada is CAD716K vs £285K (=CAD480K) in the UK.
The average price of a house in Canada is CAD716K vs £285K (=CAD480K) in the UK.
you made a typo, Britain's population is 68M, not 86.
Agree about the supply/demand difference causing the difference but I think your numbers are off. The UK build around 200k new 'dwellings' last year (financial year ending March 2022) according to [1] but I don't know whether that accounts for demolitions.
[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/...
[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/...
Not really. It would also have to tax hoarding them to prevent driving rents higher. Which would hurt landlords sitting in the Parliament. All 100% of them.
> The state shouldn't need to build houses
What is the basis for this belief?
Every country that got people out of poverty, India, China and Singapore, has a massive state housing program. They work. We have results.
What is the basis for this belief?
Every country that got people out of poverty, India, China and Singapore, has a massive state housing program. They work. We have results.
Also depends on the average number of people per house, and rate at which houses are destroyed.
Why are we still building houses like it's 1800 though? Hand crafted houses built by local artisans are always going to be expensive
Why are we still building houses like it's 1800 though? Hand crafted houses built by local artisans are always going to be expensive
Construction costs are usually less then land acquisition costs. Housing developers are extremely efficient when they are allowed to build hundreds of identical units on a single large parcel. Most of the work can be done by unskilled laborers with artisans only doing the critical bits.
The state does need to make houses to provide for lower paid people who do critical jobs.
Yep, and people who don't do critical jobs or earn much at all tend to want somewhere to live too (and subsidising their private sector housing costs in areas with housing shortages usually costs more in the long run)
Not really discussing the slowdown of building and mass-selloff of council owned housing since 1979 is a curious omission from an otherwise detailed description of public policy on housing. Private sector housebuilders have different incentives from public authorities, and maximising the profit from a site need not mean maximising the number of available homes (especially not given Britons with purchasing power were the original suburbanites). Nor does it mean building on all the limited supply of local land suitable for development at once, when it can be released in tranches (homebuilders have several years worth of plots with planning permission for every home they build in a year)
Not really discussing the slowdown of building and mass-selloff of council owned housing since 1979 is a curious omission from an otherwise detailed description of public policy on housing. Private sector housebuilders have different incentives from public authorities, and maximising the profit from a site need not mean maximising the number of available homes (especially not given Britons with purchasing power were the original suburbanites). Nor does it mean building on all the limited supply of local land suitable for development at once, when it can be released in tranches (homebuilders have several years worth of plots with planning permission for every home they build in a year)
That doesn't make sense: if your job is indeed "critical" you have enough leverage to negotiate higher pay, don't you?
Which jobs are critical? What would happen if those people decided to take higher paid but less "critical" jobs?
Lower paid... critical jobs... State.
Hahaha. Can't we just ditch capitalism altogether? It can't even pay and provide housing to people who perform critical jobs.
Or are we discussing building barracks for slaves?
Hahaha. Can't we just ditch capitalism altogether? It can't even pay and provide housing to people who perform critical jobs.
Or are we discussing building barracks for slaves?
The worst part is that all of the new building projects are absolutely terribly built. It has gotten to the point where buying a house that was last worked on 20 years ago is more reliable than a new build, since so many new builds have borderline dangerous mistakes, and also huge illegal corner cuts that the government does nothing about. Not only is the construction bad, but so is the planning. Many of these new builds are completely car dependent with no plan made for access to the town centre or for building local shopping areas
I've lived in houses built in the 60s, 80, 00s, and 10s.
The ones in the 10s were by far the best build quality, however the plots were tiny, and they come with extra taxes. The estates were full of cars parked over the pavements because of the limited parking (claiming a garage as a parking space for example), and the green spaces were poorly maintained (due to the privatised companies that own them)
The ones in the 10s were by far the best build quality, however the plots were tiny, and they come with extra taxes. The estates were full of cars parked over the pavements because of the limited parking (claiming a garage as a parking space for example), and the green spaces were poorly maintained (due to the privatised companies that own them)
I don't know if it's the same in the UK, but in Australia 63% of MPs are landlords, compared to only 7% of the general population. Almost no MPs are renters, compared to 30% of the general population. These people are never going to meaningfully help renters because doing so harms landlords, and they are landlords. There's no legitimacy to a system like this, being ruled by people who have completely different fundamental interests to you and with no legal way to vote for anyone else because every major party is a landlord party.
It’s so rare that one of the candidates for my area in the NSW election even had “Vote a renter into parliament” on every one of her posters and flyers.
Yep, I took particular note of Max Chandler-Mather after seeing a particularly passionate and persuasive speech on housing affordability (this one: https://youtu.be/DD54fVtlUSA). Looked him up to see if he was himself a landlord, he's one of the very few that isn't.
> If I was a young person, this above all other things would radicalize me. Our elected leadership are captive to stupid market force arguments. I'd rather they tried and failed than sat on their hands.
I truly think it has radicalized a lot of us. My generation (millennials and younger) are one of the first ones not to slide further right politically as time goes on but remain staunchly left wing. That's culturally significant; a highly educated middle class is swinging a way they never normally do, outside of a revolutionary period (war/famine/etc). I see Socialist posters everywhere I go, and everywhere we're seeing strikes in almost every industry. There's inevitably going to be more civil unrest and eventual violence in our countries future.
It feels like we're sliding into some sort of capitalist feudalism, where the rich continue to accumulate property, and people who don't have the means already (through family, inheritance, or a very high paying career) are stuck to a life of renting, with no wealth to pass on to their children. Right now, even if I could afford a 2-3 bed house somewhere (maybe £300k, so a £30k deposit), I'd be paying £1800 a month in mortgage looking at a calculator from Barclays. That's nearing 100% of my take home after tax/student loan. It's obscene.
I work in the semiconductor industry and have done for close to 5 years now. I worked damn hard to get here. All my older colleagues (50+), who's career path I've followed pretty much 1:1, had a house, kids, and some decent savings by the time they were my age. Some were even building up a portfolio of investments. I'm years away from being anywhere close to that. I end up with barely anything left after bills/groceries/other expenses. I've just taken up a second job working three nights a week in a bar just so I can actually afford to go to do anything fun after I've maxed out my ISA so I can maybe get a house in 5 years. It's cripplingly demotivating, and if I had the time to do else but work myself out of this hole I'd probably be on the picket line too.
I truly think it has radicalized a lot of us. My generation (millennials and younger) are one of the first ones not to slide further right politically as time goes on but remain staunchly left wing. That's culturally significant; a highly educated middle class is swinging a way they never normally do, outside of a revolutionary period (war/famine/etc). I see Socialist posters everywhere I go, and everywhere we're seeing strikes in almost every industry. There's inevitably going to be more civil unrest and eventual violence in our countries future.
It feels like we're sliding into some sort of capitalist feudalism, where the rich continue to accumulate property, and people who don't have the means already (through family, inheritance, or a very high paying career) are stuck to a life of renting, with no wealth to pass on to their children. Right now, even if I could afford a 2-3 bed house somewhere (maybe £300k, so a £30k deposit), I'd be paying £1800 a month in mortgage looking at a calculator from Barclays. That's nearing 100% of my take home after tax/student loan. It's obscene.
I work in the semiconductor industry and have done for close to 5 years now. I worked damn hard to get here. All my older colleagues (50+), who's career path I've followed pretty much 1:1, had a house, kids, and some decent savings by the time they were my age. Some were even building up a portfolio of investments. I'm years away from being anywhere close to that. I end up with barely anything left after bills/groceries/other expenses. I've just taken up a second job working three nights a week in a bar just so I can actually afford to go to do anything fun after I've maxed out my ISA so I can maybe get a house in 5 years. It's cripplingly demotivating, and if I had the time to do else but work myself out of this hole I'd probably be on the picket line too.
Please remember not to ask for a pay rise too, otherwise you'll be making inflation worse! /s
Yep it sucks. Many people I know cannot afford unless there are two people paying the bills. You need two to tango for kids of course, and some might argue why do you need a 3 bed house if you are single without kids (I am assuming here - you may not be). Of course that is no one's business apart from your own and shouldn't factor in to this.
Yep it sucks. Many people I know cannot afford unless there are two people paying the bills. You need two to tango for kids of course, and some might argue why do you need a 3 bed house if you are single without kids (I am assuming here - you may not be). Of course that is no one's business apart from your own and shouldn't factor in to this.
> why do you need a 3 bed house if you are single without kids
Because the 3 bed house is a signal to potential mates that you are financially capable of starting a family. Don't get me wrong there's a lot that goes into picking a partner and not everyone is going to be bothered by it, but there's a substantial portion out there who are going to look at where you live as an indicator of whether you're a potential long term suitor. Which is sad really because I think people used to meet, fall in love with the actual person rather than a checklist, and then took on challenges together and grew as a result, like moving into a small or rundown house, renovating it and then starting a family. There is an insidious streak in dating culture now where getting with someone who hasn't already made it is interpreted as "settling for less than you deserve". Don't get me wrong, you've got to have some standards and dealbreakers, but if you watch any of the matchmaking shows on Netflix, the criteria most of the dates have for their potential partners is wild. There's a reason Sima Aunty is always telling them to compromise, she knows exactly what's up!
Because the 3 bed house is a signal to potential mates that you are financially capable of starting a family. Don't get me wrong there's a lot that goes into picking a partner and not everyone is going to be bothered by it, but there's a substantial portion out there who are going to look at where you live as an indicator of whether you're a potential long term suitor. Which is sad really because I think people used to meet, fall in love with the actual person rather than a checklist, and then took on challenges together and grew as a result, like moving into a small or rundown house, renovating it and then starting a family. There is an insidious streak in dating culture now where getting with someone who hasn't already made it is interpreted as "settling for less than you deserve". Don't get me wrong, you've got to have some standards and dealbreakers, but if you watch any of the matchmaking shows on Netflix, the criteria most of the dates have for their potential partners is wild. There's a reason Sima Aunty is always telling them to compromise, she knows exactly what's up!
I want a 3 bed house because some time soon I'll probably need to have kids, else my partner be too old to conceive. I work from home most days, so a 3rd room would be nice for an office or if we want a 2nd child. We will likely make do with a 2 bed flat (still 200k if we're lucky in the arse end of nowhere - 250k in a place we'd actually enjoy living). I don't know any of my older colleagues or family that had to settle for that; again, following the same career path or worse. My parents managed a 3 bed house on the South coast on a nurse and chef salary. That would be functionally impossible today.
There was a poll posted on HN within the last week or two showing the expected slide rightward for your demo. I can’t comment on how it compares to previous generations.
Possibly the Nate Cohn thing from NYT in early June?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/06/millennials-will-not...
This is a pretty good analysis. Yes, some rightward shift. Things to change, though sometimes they change back as well. Millennials are still far more left-leaning than boomers as they age.
> Critically, millennials are also much more Democratic than their predecessors were at the same age, as the chart above on the age gap in recent U.S. elections makes clear. And this exceptional partisan distribution is rooted in the generation’s distinctive social values, which do not typically change drastically over time.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/06/millennials-will-not...
This is a pretty good analysis. Yes, some rightward shift. Things to change, though sometimes they change back as well. Millennials are still far more left-leaning than boomers as they age.
> Critically, millennials are also much more Democratic than their predecessors were at the same age, as the chart above on the age gap in recent U.S. elections makes clear. And this exceptional partisan distribution is rooted in the generation’s distinctive social values, which do not typically change drastically over time.
Everything I've read on the subject suggests that both economically and socially, we're far more left wing and liberal than what we "should be" by this age. I'm not sure what poll you're suggesting; if it's only polling HN members I imagine it wouldn't represent the broader population at all. Be aware I am discussing largely British politics which is a different beast in many ways (from years of Tory austerity and Brexit catastrophe). Just a quick web search provides a lot of material harking the same story.
This data is particularly telling: https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/htt...
Other reading material: https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767... https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/generation-wars-ov... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/21/age-not-cla...
This data is particularly telling: https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/htt...
Other reading material: https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767... https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/generation-wars-ov... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/21/age-not-cla...
>Truly sordid tropes about rent caps and freezes are trotted out again and again, as if simply reciting them makes them axioms: they're not.
Neither does insisting that these are sordid tropes make them so. In a vacuum, freezing rent disincentivizes the creation of new housing. You can negate this effect by subsidizing new housing, but that doesn't mean that the effect is fake news.
>Our elected leadership are captive to stupid market force arguments.
I wish. If that were the case, we'd replace property taxes with a land value tax, and it would be much easier for both the government and private developers to build new housing.
Neither does insisting that these are sordid tropes make them so. In a vacuum, freezing rent disincentivizes the creation of new housing. You can negate this effect by subsidizing new housing, but that doesn't mean that the effect is fake news.
>Our elected leadership are captive to stupid market force arguments.
I wish. If that were the case, we'd replace property taxes with a land value tax, and it would be much easier for both the government and private developers to build new housing.
> Our elected leadership are captive to stupid market force arguments
Perhaps recently, but the state driven housebuilding programs have met similar failures. Local authorities and their residents seem equally hostile to housebuilding whether it's made by the private sector or public sector (see the backlash faced by Labour governments under Harold Wilson or Tony Blair).
Perhaps one of the better arguments against democracy in general is that it makes housebuilding so difficult.
Perhaps recently, but the state driven housebuilding programs have met similar failures. Local authorities and their residents seem equally hostile to housebuilding whether it's made by the private sector or public sector (see the backlash faced by Labour governments under Harold Wilson or Tony Blair).
Perhaps one of the better arguments against democracy in general is that it makes housebuilding so difficult.
> Local authorities and their residents seem equally hostile to housebuilding whether it's made by the private sector or public sector
In my experience (in Edinburgh) the vast majority of people I speak to tend to view the private developments (especially the insatiable appetite for student accommodation) and short term lets far less favourably.
Granted, Edinburgh is a special case with an incredibly high demand for short term letting and students.
In my experience (in Edinburgh) the vast majority of people I speak to tend to view the private developments (especially the insatiable appetite for student accommodation) and short term lets far less favourably.
Granted, Edinburgh is a special case with an incredibly high demand for short term letting and students.
Unfortunately it's hard to observe the public reaction to state led housebuilding without resorting to historical examples because there's so little happening at the moment.
The kind of state that is suicidally anorexic.
And all the companies then become little monopoly states within the state, bloated and unable to perform basic task. Which why the dysfunctional ideology has to be pushed worldwide. Any state not participating and not protecting the monopolies could easily out outcompete this mess and they do.
Worst of all it ain't even news, ambitious people disassembling the spaceship that keeps them alive is as old as time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary_(1301%E2%...
And all the companies then become little monopoly states within the state, bloated and unable to perform basic task. Which why the dysfunctional ideology has to be pushed worldwide. Any state not participating and not protecting the monopolies could easily out outcompete this mess and they do.
Worst of all it ain't even news, ambitious people disassembling the spaceship that keeps them alive is as old as time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary_(1301%E2%...
I'm a homeowner as well and although I've benefited enormously to the tune of 100s of thousand of dollars in equity gains, I'm disgusted by the lack of will to fix this problem. I'm not the most selfless person in the world, far from it but I would never vote against someone else's right to build cost effective shelter (building regulations/requirements) or acquire the land needed (zoning/land use policy) to do so. I don't understand how people don't get that everyone should have a right to be somewhere on this planet: anything less is completely inhumane.
> Thatcher's revolution in council housing is a cesspit of counterfactual outcomes [...] from shelter statistics [it] left 1.5 million families functionally homeless
I'm interested by this analysis. I found some web sources that seems to deal with that matter: Any specific in-depth article you could recommend?
I'm interested by this analysis. I found some web sources that seems to deal with that matter: Any specific in-depth article you could recommend?
Neoliberalism seems based around the idea the government shouldn't do things, and this is the result, in housing and other areas.
I am in Indian immigrant living in the UK for past 5 years. The housing system here feels extremely stupid to me. They basically resell houses 100+ years old at 5% higher value every year. It's kinda like gold or bitcoin, except those assets are actually very limited in number. But housing is simply artificially limited due to policies.
Total UK housing stock is worth 10T GBP vs 2.2T GBP GDP output. Don't think any other country comes even close in terms of skewed reliance on housing as a driver of wealth. I can't imagine the reduction in net worth of citizens (65% are owners) when house prices crash 20% due to higher interest rates. That would be 2T of the 10T value - almost the same as GDP.
Anecdotally, every British person I know has a common long term goal - save enough money for a 5-10% deposit on a mortgage. The incentives here are all wrong. You build wealth by investing in a house & taking 90% loan to value mortgages instead of actually working harder. Work is just a means to save enough for deposit & afford a mortgage premiums and maybe 1-2 holidays a year.
People complain UK is stagnating. Companies don't want to IPO in London. I can tell why - banks don't want to lend to SMEs. 50% of their lending is actually housing mortgages. Same with people - they would overwhelmingly invest in a house rather than own company shares. Housing is the root cause of malaise in the economy. Take away the incentives to own a house by building more homes, increasing mortgage rates and eliminating government policies helping people to buy & this country would just become much better
Total UK housing stock is worth 10T GBP vs 2.2T GBP GDP output. Don't think any other country comes even close in terms of skewed reliance on housing as a driver of wealth. I can't imagine the reduction in net worth of citizens (65% are owners) when house prices crash 20% due to higher interest rates. That would be 2T of the 10T value - almost the same as GDP.
Anecdotally, every British person I know has a common long term goal - save enough money for a 5-10% deposit on a mortgage. The incentives here are all wrong. You build wealth by investing in a house & taking 90% loan to value mortgages instead of actually working harder. Work is just a means to save enough for deposit & afford a mortgage premiums and maybe 1-2 holidays a year.
People complain UK is stagnating. Companies don't want to IPO in London. I can tell why - banks don't want to lend to SMEs. 50% of their lending is actually housing mortgages. Same with people - they would overwhelmingly invest in a house rather than own company shares. Housing is the root cause of malaise in the economy. Take away the incentives to own a house by building more homes, increasing mortgage rates and eliminating government policies helping people to buy & this country would just become much better
Great comment.
You've described the issue at the upper-end of the income spectrum well. I think you're correct that excess income in this country tends to largely be funnelled into real estate rather than building businesses, but equally on the lower income spectrum (where individuals don't have the income to afford their own homes) their income gets redistributed to the wealthy via high rents (and I'd argue taxation too, but that's another topic).
That said, I'm not sure housing is the root cause of our economic problems – although it's certainly part of it. I think the primary issue is government underinvestment and that we just generally don't have very good incentives to build or work here. This has probably been the case for the last 20 or so years and now with these latest economic challenges the consequences are really starting to show.
On the wealthier end of the economy I'd argue culturally entrepreneurs and investors are far more risk adverse here. Technology and startups are viewed with more scepticism and less optimism and for this reason people tend do less innovative things. This is compounded by the fact our government has done very little to encourage innovation. So for this reason startups here tend to just apply tech to existing business models. Eg, "we're a bank but with a tech focus", "we're an insurance startup but with a tech focus", "we're an energy company but with a tech focus". This is literally the height of innovation in the UK. We rarely build anything truly new or interesting in the same way I'd argue Scandinavian countries do. Then on top of this you have the government crippling innovation via excessive taxation and regulation – although this is more of a general European issue.
On the lower-income side of the equation I have no idea why people work anymore. If you know what you're doing you can earn around £20,000 (tax free) on benefits in the UK. Additionally the government will give you a house (and often a car) so in total you'll generally have a far higher living standard on benefits than getting a working class job paying you £22,000. Whenever I say this I always have middle class people say I'm exaggerating or somehow slandering working class people as being lazy – and to be clear I'm not. I'm from a working class background and the majority of my family are on benefits because it just makes sense.
You've described the issue at the upper-end of the income spectrum well. I think you're correct that excess income in this country tends to largely be funnelled into real estate rather than building businesses, but equally on the lower income spectrum (where individuals don't have the income to afford their own homes) their income gets redistributed to the wealthy via high rents (and I'd argue taxation too, but that's another topic).
That said, I'm not sure housing is the root cause of our economic problems – although it's certainly part of it. I think the primary issue is government underinvestment and that we just generally don't have very good incentives to build or work here. This has probably been the case for the last 20 or so years and now with these latest economic challenges the consequences are really starting to show.
On the wealthier end of the economy I'd argue culturally entrepreneurs and investors are far more risk adverse here. Technology and startups are viewed with more scepticism and less optimism and for this reason people tend do less innovative things. This is compounded by the fact our government has done very little to encourage innovation. So for this reason startups here tend to just apply tech to existing business models. Eg, "we're a bank but with a tech focus", "we're an insurance startup but with a tech focus", "we're an energy company but with a tech focus". This is literally the height of innovation in the UK. We rarely build anything truly new or interesting in the same way I'd argue Scandinavian countries do. Then on top of this you have the government crippling innovation via excessive taxation and regulation – although this is more of a general European issue.
On the lower-income side of the equation I have no idea why people work anymore. If you know what you're doing you can earn around £20,000 (tax free) on benefits in the UK. Additionally the government will give you a house (and often a car) so in total you'll generally have a far higher living standard on benefits than getting a working class job paying you £22,000. Whenever I say this I always have middle class people say I'm exaggerating or somehow slandering working class people as being lazy – and to be clear I'm not. I'm from a working class background and the majority of my family are on benefits because it just makes sense.
Out of curiosity how would someone earn £20k of benefits while also getting a house? That seems outlandish to me.
There's loads of houses being built in the UK (often of questionable quality, built for maximum profit, packed into minimal amounts of space).
It may still not be enough to match the demand, but the real problem is we don't seem to be building any infrastructure to support these homes.
More people and more homes requires more roads, railways, hospitals, police stations, power stations, sewer capacity, even reservoirs, and lots more. And this rarely seems mentioned in discussions of the housing crisis or rising immigration. And as a nation we're incapable of building infrastructure without cost and/or timescale spiralling completely out of control. See HS2.
It may still not be enough to match the demand, but the real problem is we don't seem to be building any infrastructure to support these homes.
More people and more homes requires more roads, railways, hospitals, police stations, power stations, sewer capacity, even reservoirs, and lots more. And this rarely seems mentioned in discussions of the housing crisis or rising immigration. And as a nation we're incapable of building infrastructure without cost and/or timescale spiralling completely out of control. See HS2.
Infrastructure isn't perfect, but we talk about housing shortages because people earning double the national average wage rent rooms with other professionals in houses designed for a single family whilst trying to save up double their annual wage for a deposit on a >25 year mortgage on a flat. Whereas for all the UK's infrastructure problems, power brownouts due to lack of generation capability or lack of a local police station aren't really things people suffer from.
Hard to pretend the real problem is the rail network when we have more miles of rail network and fewer houses per person than most of the rest of the world. And the UK talks about its healthcare issues non-stop, but not in the context of housing because it isn't the same problem.
Hard to pretend the real problem is the rail network when we have more miles of rail network and fewer houses per person than most of the rest of the world. And the UK talks about its healthcare issues non-stop, but not in the context of housing because it isn't the same problem.
This comment shows up the other issue, the London-centric nature of UK politics.
If you think the UK transport network is OK, but pick the most extreme examples of housing costs, you're probably a Londoner. The housing situation is awful elsewhere, but still a long way from London's extremes.
But if you live elsewhere, try getting anywhere by road or by rail, and it's usually a grim experience.
If you think the UK transport network is OK, but pick the most extreme examples of housing costs, you're probably a Londoner. The housing situation is awful elsewhere, but still a long way from London's extremes.
But if you live elsewhere, try getting anywhere by road or by rail, and it's usually a grim experience.
These two issues are related everywhere outside London.
The reason why transport infrastructure is "so bad" is because in every city apart from London, you cannot build outside the city so developers often have to get planning permission on sites in rural areas and they can't connect transport to nearby cities.
It is quite maddening because building is often actually blocked in some of these cities because of infrastructure concerns too...even though, the problem would be solved at a higher level by building closer to cities.
The whole thing is bad intention arguments the whole way down.
The reason why transport infrastructure is "so bad" is because in every city apart from London, you cannot build outside the city so developers often have to get planning permission on sites in rural areas and they can't connect transport to nearby cities.
It is quite maddening because building is often actually blocked in some of these cities because of infrastructure concerns too...even though, the problem would be solved at a higher level by building closer to cities.
The whole thing is bad intention arguments the whole way down.
I don't live in London any more. Probably won't again, for reasons of housing cost.
But I also live in a real world where most developed countries have significantly cheaper housing but nowhere near as many rail lines as the UK as a whole, and where it's a lot easier to build more affordable homes than to ensure there are enough roads for nobody to ever experience a traffic queue.
But I also live in a real world where most developed countries have significantly cheaper housing but nowhere near as many rail lines as the UK as a whole, and where it's a lot easier to build more affordable homes than to ensure there are enough roads for nobody to ever experience a traffic queue.
We need to build houses at least as fast as the population grows. Because this has not happened for decades, we need to build houses even faster than that, to clear the backlog. This is not happening.
Meanwhile, no-one will build infrastructure for settlements that do not yet exist, and we consistently elect a party that believes in less, rather than more, infrastructure in general. Rather than an investment, Tories fundamentally see infrastructure spending as an unrecoverable loss.
At least if more housing gets built there will be more people in the area pestering their MPs for solutions to infrastructure problems - perhaps even enough to outnumber the NIMBYs. One can hope.
Meanwhile, no-one will build infrastructure for settlements that do not yet exist, and we consistently elect a party that believes in less, rather than more, infrastructure in general. Rather than an investment, Tories fundamentally see infrastructure spending as an unrecoverable loss.
At least if more housing gets built there will be more people in the area pestering their MPs for solutions to infrastructure problems - perhaps even enough to outnumber the NIMBYs. One can hope.
The irony is that historically, a lot of rail was built for settlements that, while they may have existed, did not support the cost of rail, and this has driven a lot of development.
And this is both how it ought to work and means that the UK has a lot of existing rail that could help solve this problem if the government would just commit to streamline planning processes and to increasing routes and frequency to stations where there is a potential for density increases at lower cost.
And this is both how it ought to work and means that the UK has a lot of existing rail that could help solve this problem if the government would just commit to streamline planning processes and to increasing routes and frequency to stations where there is a potential for density increases at lower cost.
I think this is a really interesting perspective. This could decentralise the population and solve many problems that way, and also reduce the costs and risks associated with utilising fully modernised technology; no need for compromise
I think about this more than I should, because it drives me crazy how many rail routes in the UK are there but ridiculously underutilised because few people live there now, but so many of those stretches of rail also have immediate surroundings of rail station with no historic value, yet built on, that could provide extra density very cheaply if only people felt they could rely on faster commutes.
> We need to build houses at least as fast as the population grows. Because this has not happened for decades.
Over those decades UK population growth [1] is lower than the new house building rate [see chart in article].
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/pop...
Over those decades UK population growth [1] is lower than the new house building rate [see chart in article].
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/pop...
The graph shows building rate as a proportion of the size of existing stock. But the existing stock is grossly insufficient to our needs.
We've been building around 200k houses a year for decades, much less than that during most years of Conservative rule: https://www.statista.com/statistics/746101/completion-of-new...
This is around 0.3% of the population. The population increase year on year is consistently larger than this.
We need to be building new houses much faster than we are. We need to build at 1960s rates or faster at least until it is possible for people on median wages to have somewhere sane to live again.
We've been building around 200k houses a year for decades, much less than that during most years of Conservative rule: https://www.statista.com/statistics/746101/completion-of-new...
This is around 0.3% of the population. The population increase year on year is consistently larger than this.
We need to be building new houses much faster than we are. We need to build at 1960s rates or faster at least until it is possible for people on median wages to have somewhere sane to live again.
> The current population of U.K. in 2023 is 67,736,802, a 0.34% increase from 2022.
> The population of U.K. in 2022 was 67,508,936, a 0.34% increase from 2021.
> The population of U.K. in 2021 was 67,281,039, a 0.33% increase from 2020.
> The population of U.K. in 2020 was 67,059,474, a 0.42% increase from 2019.
1 year old babies dont 4 bedroom houses of their own.
1 year old babies dont 4 bedroom houses of their own.
I'm not sure that posting the population growth figures over four years and adding a snarky remark about babies owning houses proves anything whatsoever other than your own ignorance and disinterest on the matter in hand.
You'd need to also think about not only the number of homes built, but the kind of homes built, the location they're built in, the cost at which they're built, the incomes of those who need to be housed and where they and their jobs are located compared to the houses. And to cap it all you'd probably want to look at it over a meaningful time period because I don't think anyone thinks the current situation with UK housing started in 2019.
Or you can save us all the bother and say what you really mean - you either don't care or you're quite happy with the current situation.
You'd need to also think about not only the number of homes built, but the kind of homes built, the location they're built in, the cost at which they're built, the incomes of those who need to be housed and where they and their jobs are located compared to the houses. And to cap it all you'd probably want to look at it over a meaningful time period because I don't think anyone thinks the current situation with UK housing started in 2019.
Or you can save us all the bother and say what you really mean - you either don't care or you're quite happy with the current situation.
I already posted the numbers from 1950 to date, both from the perspective of population growth and house building. The numbers are clear, perhaps you were not interested enough to look or were unable to understand.
> Or you can save us all the bother and say what you really mean.
Its pretty obvious that there is a change in the size of the household over the 73 years I cited, which everyone is comfortable ignoring.
The number of homes built is clearly not the dominant issue, but the kind of homes built, the location they're built in, the cost at which they're built, the incomes of those who need to be housed and where they and their jobs are located compared to the houses is the issue.
I could magic up 10million studio appartments in the geographic center of the country - it would make absolutely fuck all difference to the price of a family home in Manchester or Bristol (it would probably make them even more expensive as it would drain all the house building resources of the country). It would however, fully satisfy and surpass the targets of those that "care or are unhappy with the current situation" and their caring solutions.
Actually a large number of issues did start just after 2019. Something happened and the demands and tastes changed drastically nearly overnight, suddenly the kind of homes built, the location they're built in for the prior 10 years was not what everyone wanted.
Will it last? Will it flip back overnight? I dont know. Obviously I am not as knowledgeable or as interested as you are.
> Or you can save us all the bother and say what you really mean.
Its pretty obvious that there is a change in the size of the household over the 73 years I cited, which everyone is comfortable ignoring.
The number of homes built is clearly not the dominant issue, but the kind of homes built, the location they're built in, the cost at which they're built, the incomes of those who need to be housed and where they and their jobs are located compared to the houses is the issue.
I could magic up 10million studio appartments in the geographic center of the country - it would make absolutely fuck all difference to the price of a family home in Manchester or Bristol (it would probably make them even more expensive as it would drain all the house building resources of the country). It would however, fully satisfy and surpass the targets of those that "care or are unhappy with the current situation" and their caring solutions.
Actually a large number of issues did start just after 2019. Something happened and the demands and tastes changed drastically nearly overnight, suddenly the kind of homes built, the location they're built in for the prior 10 years was not what everyone wanted.
Will it last? Will it flip back overnight? I dont know. Obviously I am not as knowledgeable or as interested as you are.
Couple of things to this:
You're right it's growing faster than that. E.g. Mid 2018 to mid 2019, it rose by 361k people. But the UK average household size is 2.4, so 200k new houses should in theory accommodate a population growth of 866k.
If those were the only numbers that mattered, it wouldn't be a problem. We'd catch up fast.
But all houses are not the same. A large part of the problem is people following jobs, and so a significantly higher rate of construction may be needed because people move, and needed types of properties change. Unless you can make the places people are moving away from to be more attractive, e.g. by infrastructure improvement to tie areas together in ways that make them attractive regions for businesses.
The bigger issues, however, I think are two structural problems:
1. As long as house prices go up at a sufficient rate, the soundest strategy for a developer may be to raise capital to buy land and then sit on it until house prices go up. Your cost of capital to finance it will be financing costs for the cost of the land for however many years you sit on it, and the financing costs for the construction itself only from you start construction until sold. Doubly so because if you're a large developer, holding a large parcel of land while you're, say, developing something else nearby, and releasing only limited numbers of properties onto the market contributes to keeping the prices up. Near me, one of the best properties in the area, a huge tract right next to one of the best connected train stations in the UK (East Croydon) remained undeveloped for over a decade because developers had no urgency to do anything. It's now slowly being developed, but they're taking their good time about it, because why wouldn't they?
You could address that by progressively harsher taxes by duration of under-utilisation, or strengthen ability for local government to take over land, to make it necessary for developers to either move at speed or unload the land on others, but if you fix the house price increases by other means, this problem will also go away by itself.
2. There is no political will to cause house prices to drop, because that would mean a lot of people who have seen this as a pension investment, and plan to downsize, will vote against you.
To fix this you probably need a combination of starting slow - reforms that gradually cause the market to stagnate so people stop seeing it as surefire way to make money - coupled perhaps with tax and pension adjustment structured to make it feel like your reforms are relatively neutral. E.g "package" it with substantial state pension increases, or allow for some degree of writeoffs for paper losses on declining property prices, perhaps limited to pensioners only, etc. Some of it you could sunset, and some might well end up being very unfair and effectively bribing people who shouldn't have gambled on their home as their main investment asset, but if that's what it takes to get support for crashing house prices, it'd be worth it.
You're right it's growing faster than that. E.g. Mid 2018 to mid 2019, it rose by 361k people. But the UK average household size is 2.4, so 200k new houses should in theory accommodate a population growth of 866k.
If those were the only numbers that mattered, it wouldn't be a problem. We'd catch up fast.
But all houses are not the same. A large part of the problem is people following jobs, and so a significantly higher rate of construction may be needed because people move, and needed types of properties change. Unless you can make the places people are moving away from to be more attractive, e.g. by infrastructure improvement to tie areas together in ways that make them attractive regions for businesses.
The bigger issues, however, I think are two structural problems:
1. As long as house prices go up at a sufficient rate, the soundest strategy for a developer may be to raise capital to buy land and then sit on it until house prices go up. Your cost of capital to finance it will be financing costs for the cost of the land for however many years you sit on it, and the financing costs for the construction itself only from you start construction until sold. Doubly so because if you're a large developer, holding a large parcel of land while you're, say, developing something else nearby, and releasing only limited numbers of properties onto the market contributes to keeping the prices up. Near me, one of the best properties in the area, a huge tract right next to one of the best connected train stations in the UK (East Croydon) remained undeveloped for over a decade because developers had no urgency to do anything. It's now slowly being developed, but they're taking their good time about it, because why wouldn't they?
You could address that by progressively harsher taxes by duration of under-utilisation, or strengthen ability for local government to take over land, to make it necessary for developers to either move at speed or unload the land on others, but if you fix the house price increases by other means, this problem will also go away by itself.
2. There is no political will to cause house prices to drop, because that would mean a lot of people who have seen this as a pension investment, and plan to downsize, will vote against you.
To fix this you probably need a combination of starting slow - reforms that gradually cause the market to stagnate so people stop seeing it as surefire way to make money - coupled perhaps with tax and pension adjustment structured to make it feel like your reforms are relatively neutral. E.g "package" it with substantial state pension increases, or allow for some degree of writeoffs for paper losses on declining property prices, perhaps limited to pensioners only, etc. Some of it you could sunset, and some might well end up being very unfair and effectively bribing people who shouldn't have gambled on their home as their main investment asset, but if that's what it takes to get support for crashing house prices, it'd be worth it.
We actually have excess housing in the UK: https://positivemoney.org/2023/01/more-than-building-new-hou...
> "Home ownership has increasingly become the preserve of the wealthy, with billions pumped into property purchases by overseas investors, landlords and retail banks."
So the UK population is not the complete set of entities that want to buy housing stock, and measuring population alone is not sufficient to capture the entirety of the demand. This means we need to build even faster! Saturate these markets. Those folks are giving us money to build empty houses; use it! Once supply outstrips all demand, prices fall - that's how markets work. Let the invisible hand of the free market inform the foreign investors that housing bubbles are a bad bet. Certainly nothing else has worked.
So the UK population is not the complete set of entities that want to buy housing stock, and measuring population alone is not sufficient to capture the entirety of the demand. This means we need to build even faster! Saturate these markets. Those folks are giving us money to build empty houses; use it! Once supply outstrips all demand, prices fall - that's how markets work. Let the invisible hand of the free market inform the foreign investors that housing bubbles are a bad bet. Certainly nothing else has worked.
That’s what we’ve been doing for a while now - why hasn’t it worked? I guess we could deregulate and approve more building, but then we end up with a load of empty boxes of substandard/dangerous quality, with inadequate local resources, and a few very rich property developers. Sounds a foolish pursuit in the face of a climate crisis.
One of my pet peeves is that UK infrastructure focus seems to be about getting people to the centre of London faster, and that just makes the pressure on London greater at excessive costs, and then you start the cycle all over.
You see that even with HS1 and HS2, where instead of focusing on lines towards London it'd have been better to strengthen the triangle of Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, and pour money into effectively creating a bigger "third city". Then maybe link Birmingham, and purposefully delay any links to London.
The problem with linking everything to London is that while it makes it easier to work from further out, it also makes London ever more attractive.
But even on a more local level, I wish instead of spending in the centre of London, focus shifted to bypassing the centre. E.g. I live in Croydon. Croydon has rail towards multiple towns around London, but anything not on the main lines in towards London doesn't have commuter level rail services running on them, or in some cases have no passenger trains at all.
Which means that many towns are easier reached by taking a detour in towards the centre and out again, which again means there's an incentive for businesses etc. to be closer to the centre. Even when in towards the centre and out again would be the shortest route, it might be beneficial to encourage avoiding the busy routes towards the centre.
Which again means that a whole lot of towns where there are town centres that have huge potential for large increases in density, and potential for lower cost upgrades of other infrastructure, without affecting the green belt, but where the demand is not there for that density increase because of the lack of efficient transport.
Addressing the infrastructure problem by upgrading and committing to commuter level services to connect more of these towns together so they form more viable counter-weights to the city centres they are around would make it a lot easier to address the issues you're mentioning at far lower costs than yet another big infra upgrade like HS2 or another line in London.
Successive UK governments seem to have been more focused on retrospectively managing demand surges than planning ahead, and as a result seems to be inducing demand that drives more surges to be managed and ever higher costs.
You see that even with HS1 and HS2, where instead of focusing on lines towards London it'd have been better to strengthen the triangle of Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, and pour money into effectively creating a bigger "third city". Then maybe link Birmingham, and purposefully delay any links to London.
The problem with linking everything to London is that while it makes it easier to work from further out, it also makes London ever more attractive.
But even on a more local level, I wish instead of spending in the centre of London, focus shifted to bypassing the centre. E.g. I live in Croydon. Croydon has rail towards multiple towns around London, but anything not on the main lines in towards London doesn't have commuter level rail services running on them, or in some cases have no passenger trains at all.
Which means that many towns are easier reached by taking a detour in towards the centre and out again, which again means there's an incentive for businesses etc. to be closer to the centre. Even when in towards the centre and out again would be the shortest route, it might be beneficial to encourage avoiding the busy routes towards the centre.
Which again means that a whole lot of towns where there are town centres that have huge potential for large increases in density, and potential for lower cost upgrades of other infrastructure, without affecting the green belt, but where the demand is not there for that density increase because of the lack of efficient transport.
Addressing the infrastructure problem by upgrading and committing to commuter level services to connect more of these towns together so they form more viable counter-weights to the city centres they are around would make it a lot easier to address the issues you're mentioning at far lower costs than yet another big infra upgrade like HS2 or another line in London.
Successive UK governments seem to have been more focused on retrospectively managing demand surges than planning ahead, and as a result seems to be inducing demand that drives more surges to be managed and ever higher costs.
> You see that even with HS1 and HS2, where instead of focusing on lines towards London it'd have been better to strengthen the triangle of Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, and pour money into effectively creating a bigger "third city". Then maybe link Birmingham, and purposefully delay any links to London.
Sabotaging London won't make the rest of the UK better - it will just mean less tax money available to subsidise the rest of the country. If you stop companies from expanding in London they won't go to Sheffield or Birmingham - they'll go to Amsterdam or Frankfurt or Paris.
> But even on a more local level, I wish instead of spending in the centre of London, focus shifted to bypassing the centre. E.g. I live in Croydon. Croydon has rail towards multiple towns around London, but anything not on the main lines in towards London doesn't have commuter level rail services running on them, or in some cases have no passenger trains at all.
They're trying that up to a point. Stratford has worked pretty well, and they're going to apply the same playbook at Old Oak Common. Croydon might be next on the list. But of course at the rate the UK builds anything that wil be what, 2060 before anything is done.
Sabotaging London won't make the rest of the UK better - it will just mean less tax money available to subsidise the rest of the country. If you stop companies from expanding in London they won't go to Sheffield or Birmingham - they'll go to Amsterdam or Frankfurt or Paris.
> But even on a more local level, I wish instead of spending in the centre of London, focus shifted to bypassing the centre. E.g. I live in Croydon. Croydon has rail towards multiple towns around London, but anything not on the main lines in towards London doesn't have commuter level rail services running on them, or in some cases have no passenger trains at all.
They're trying that up to a point. Stratford has worked pretty well, and they're going to apply the same playbook at Old Oak Common. Croydon might be next on the list. But of course at the rate the UK builds anything that wil be what, 2060 before anything is done.
> Sabotaging London won't make the rest of the UK better - it will just mean less tax money available to subsidise the rest of the country. If you stop companies from expanding in London they won't go to Sheffield or Birmingham - they'll go to Amsterdam or Frankfurt or Paris.
It's not about sabotaging London, but about return on investment. It doesn't matter that companies for which going to Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris is an option won't go to Sheffield or Birmingham - if you draw companies that can go elsewhere in the UK, and often would love to, out to the regions, then there's plenty of capacity for those who desperately prefer London. I used to work in VC, and just the sheer number of companies founded outside of London that moved to London not because they wanted to but because they didn't see it as viable to stay in the regions was depressing. Apart from access to capital, a big driver for that was smaller commutable regions. WFH helps, but upgrading internal links within the regions would do even more.
> They're trying that up to a point. Stratford has worked pretty well, and they're going to apply the same playbook at Old Oak Common. Croydon might be next on the list. But of course at the rate the UK builds anything that wil be what, 2060 before anything is done.
Croydon town centre is extremely well connected already, and the town centre is filling up with highrises, w/several over 40 floors so far and one w/planning permission for 75. But the problem isn't for these places, but the places that could have better connections to places set further out from the centre of London to draw demand further out to lines that are poorly utilised.
E.g. places like Epsom and Sutton and smaller stations in between, or any of the train stations in Croydon not on one of the direct lines to London (West, East, South Croydon and the Purley stations are well served as is. E.g. put direct trains in places at commuter frequencies between Croydon and Guildford via Epsom, and you have a whole range stations that suddenly form a much more viable commuter pool and with capacity for increased building density, and makes several locations along the route more attractive to businesses that might otherwise pull further in. There are a lot of routes like that surrounding London.
It's not about sabotaging London, but about return on investment. It doesn't matter that companies for which going to Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris is an option won't go to Sheffield or Birmingham - if you draw companies that can go elsewhere in the UK, and often would love to, out to the regions, then there's plenty of capacity for those who desperately prefer London. I used to work in VC, and just the sheer number of companies founded outside of London that moved to London not because they wanted to but because they didn't see it as viable to stay in the regions was depressing. Apart from access to capital, a big driver for that was smaller commutable regions. WFH helps, but upgrading internal links within the regions would do even more.
> They're trying that up to a point. Stratford has worked pretty well, and they're going to apply the same playbook at Old Oak Common. Croydon might be next on the list. But of course at the rate the UK builds anything that wil be what, 2060 before anything is done.
Croydon town centre is extremely well connected already, and the town centre is filling up with highrises, w/several over 40 floors so far and one w/planning permission for 75. But the problem isn't for these places, but the places that could have better connections to places set further out from the centre of London to draw demand further out to lines that are poorly utilised.
E.g. places like Epsom and Sutton and smaller stations in between, or any of the train stations in Croydon not on one of the direct lines to London (West, East, South Croydon and the Purley stations are well served as is. E.g. put direct trains in places at commuter frequencies between Croydon and Guildford via Epsom, and you have a whole range stations that suddenly form a much more viable commuter pool and with capacity for increased building density, and makes several locations along the route more attractive to businesses that might otherwise pull further in. There are a lot of routes like that surrounding London.
The majority benefit of HS2 is significantly improved freight and passenger services throughput nationally which allows intercity lines to run many more trains in Birmingham.
The government knows this but completely missold it to the public.
The government knows this but completely missold it to the public.
I know that is what they're aiming for, but the point is that I'm disagreeing with the goal of prioritising transport to/from London because it actively encourages further centralisation, which keeps driving the need for even more upgrades while at the same time driving up the cost of doing them.
The New York City region is like this too. Forget connecting the NJ and CT suburbs, even Queens to Brooklyn to Bronx is inconvenient.
Part of why I think cities around the world went all in on highways is that its so much simpler and therefore cheaper to serve people with highways than to plan effective transit routes and schedules. With a transit route you have to consider that people will be walking to the station so its fundamentally a compromise: where one person has a 5 minute walk to the platform on the subway line inevitably means there are people not even very far away who now have a 15 minutes walk, and people farther out who might not even use the local subway because that means they add an hours walk to their day. To serve those people you now need to start planning bus or bike networks on top of the subway. All of these vehicles need operators who need benefits. You also need maintenance yards for rail and bus. Electrical substations. The actual subway line is just a part of it all.
With a highway on the other hand, it seems a lot easier to serve more people with less complicated infrastructure. When you run a highway to a town instead of the subway line example above, pretty much everyone in town is close enough to the local highway ramp with a car on the existing road network. You don't have to consider schedules or hire train operators, people drive themselves when it works for their commute. This highway also serves freight, so now you don't need to sell right of way to a freight rail company with the expectation they maintain the line to your town forever (they probably wont). A truck bay is cheaper to build for a business than a freight rail loading dock and maintenance of a rail spur.
A lot of cities in the US that are I'd say less than 1 million people without any geographic bottlenecks are a dream to get around with a car. You pretty much never hit traffic on the highway, so 20 miles is 20 mins away always. The highway network serves the entire region, so you can go just about everywhere in the area in 20 miles in those 20 minutes, not just a handful of places.
To offer that sort of convenience, turnkey scheduling with basically 25 minute door to door commutes, in transit form across lets say a 20x20 mile area would be enormously expensive, in the low trillions I'd guess given current american prices on subway tunnels per mile. Whatever we can afford to build won't nearly be so useful, and people are already so addicted to this sort of high speed car based transit that the cat is entirely out of the bag and now this is the expectation, this simply unachievable level of personal convenience using transit.
With a highway on the other hand, it seems a lot easier to serve more people with less complicated infrastructure. When you run a highway to a town instead of the subway line example above, pretty much everyone in town is close enough to the local highway ramp with a car on the existing road network. You don't have to consider schedules or hire train operators, people drive themselves when it works for their commute. This highway also serves freight, so now you don't need to sell right of way to a freight rail company with the expectation they maintain the line to your town forever (they probably wont). A truck bay is cheaper to build for a business than a freight rail loading dock and maintenance of a rail spur.
A lot of cities in the US that are I'd say less than 1 million people without any geographic bottlenecks are a dream to get around with a car. You pretty much never hit traffic on the highway, so 20 miles is 20 mins away always. The highway network serves the entire region, so you can go just about everywhere in the area in 20 miles in those 20 minutes, not just a handful of places.
To offer that sort of convenience, turnkey scheduling with basically 25 minute door to door commutes, in transit form across lets say a 20x20 mile area would be enormously expensive, in the low trillions I'd guess given current american prices on subway tunnels per mile. Whatever we can afford to build won't nearly be so useful, and people are already so addicted to this sort of high speed car based transit that the cat is entirely out of the bag and now this is the expectation, this simply unachievable level of personal convenience using transit.
The infrastructure is often insufficient for existing homes nevermind for any expansion.
I've recently moved house but I'm having to stay registered to my Dentist & Doctors 30 miles away because the wait list to get registered in my new town is months.
I've recently moved house but I'm having to stay registered to my Dentist & Doctors 30 miles away because the wait list to get registered in my new town is months.
They just built over 1000 homes near me, but not one dentist or doctors. Now the small local surgeries are expected to take these new households on. Again government policy not holding up to community needs.
The average fully-qualified GP has something like 2,300 patients registered to them.
If you assume 2.5 people per household for those new homes, their needs would be met by the addition of a single GP to an existing surgery.
Then consider that the typical buyers of new builds will be younger and healthier than average.
And that of those ~2,500 new residents, some are likely to be doctors themselves who would otherwise be unable to live in the area.
And that GP surgeries are private for-profit businesses.
And you realise the issues are more complex than they might at first seem.
If you assume 2.5 people per household for those new homes, their needs would be met by the addition of a single GP to an existing surgery.
Then consider that the typical buyers of new builds will be younger and healthier than average.
And that of those ~2,500 new residents, some are likely to be doctors themselves who would otherwise be unable to live in the area.
And that GP surgeries are private for-profit businesses.
And you realise the issues are more complex than they might at first seem.
To be fair, you can't "build" a dentist or a doctor like you can a home. First the homes come, then the residents move in. Those residents will have demands, such as health and dental care. Once those demands are heard, the doctors and dentists will finally build their offices.
Sure, this is true in a purely free-market world. But this is also why a purely free-market approach doesn't functionally work in many cases. This problem is solvable by government intervention.
> Sure, this is true in a purely free-market world.
The world we live in, yes.
> But this is also why a purely free-market approach doesn't functionally work in many cases. This problem is solvable by government intervention.
Sure, or we might end up growing the wrong crops per government order and experience massive starvation all across the country. I hope you like potatoes!
The world we live in, yes.
> But this is also why a purely free-market approach doesn't functionally work in many cases. This problem is solvable by government intervention.
Sure, or we might end up growing the wrong crops per government order and experience massive starvation all across the country. I hope you like potatoes!
> To be fair, you can't "build" a dentist or a doctor like you can a home.
Sure you can. When you build an office block or a shopping mall do you put in toilets or do you wait till the shoppers start shopping then see if their demands include going to the bathroom?
Sure you can. When you build an office block or a shopping mall do you put in toilets or do you wait till the shoppers start shopping then see if their demands include going to the bathroom?
You can build toilets just like you can homes. Toilets are standard in all homes and office buildings. You still can't build a doctor or a dentist. That takes a lot of hard work from someone who isn't you.
As disgusting as the toilets in the shops may be, they dont clean themselves. That takes a lot of hard work from someone who isn't you.
Agreed.
The problem with dentists isn't the shortage of accomodation for clinics; it's the dentists trades union restricting entry to the profession.
All the talk of NHS treatment being "free at the point of delivery" is bollocks when you're talking about dentistry; NHS dentistry isn't free, unless you're a child or a pensioner. And if you need something like a crown, you probably can't get that on the NHS at all.
All the talk of NHS treatment being "free at the point of delivery" is bollocks when you're talking about dentistry; NHS dentistry isn't free, unless you're a child or a pensioner. And if you need something like a crown, you probably can't get that on the NHS at all.
There's a shortage of GPs. Two of the small local surgeries near me have reduced opening times because they don't have the staff to staff them. The need is still there - the villages are growing, but the villagers have to travel to the next village if they're lucky enough to be able to get an appointment.
Doctor only 30 miles away? Luxury!
It’s unrealistic for me to get treatment from a GP in my area so I simply travel thousands of miles away to another country once a year for treatment.
Thousands more homes being built as well, so this isn’t changing any time soon.
It’s unrealistic for me to get treatment from a GP in my area so I simply travel thousands of miles away to another country once a year for treatment.
Thousands more homes being built as well, so this isn’t changing any time soon.
Travelling to another country for treatment sounds like the luxury to be honest. The unluxury would be no health care, or travelling 100 miles within the UK by train/bus.
Having to wait 6 months for treatment isn’t luxury, what are you talking about. That’s effectively no health care.
I am contesting the "having" part of that sentence. The UK has problems, but it is not a country in dire straits.
To be clear: We are talking about GP right? To say get your blood pressure checked, or some mild antibiotics, or a rash cream, or referral to specialist? Not a specific treatment or surgery.
To be clear: We are talking about GP right? To say get your blood pressure checked, or some mild antibiotics, or a rash cream, or referral to specialist? Not a specific treatment or surgery.
GPs gatekeep a most referrals, it's often virtually impossible to get any substantial treatment or surgery unless referred by a GP. Furthermore, for NHS treatments, it has to be a referral from an NHS GP, so you can't simply pay for a private GP to check something out.
Or, you can just wait for it to become bad enough that you go directly from A&E to inpatient care.
Or, you can just wait for it to become bad enough that you go directly from A&E to inpatient care.
Having to wait 6 months is not as bad as having no other option. Although, I do empathize for your inability to go somewhere local and need of another option.
The graphs in the article indicate there aren't loads of houses being built.
Depends on the definition of 'loads'.
For residents of small to medium sized towns and villages (where there's plenty of land available), the rapid sprawl and worstening traffic is incredibly visible.
For residents of small to medium sized towns and villages (where there's plenty of land available), the rapid sprawl and worstening traffic is incredibly visible.
If your definition of "loads" is based entirely on whether you're being personally impacted, divorced from the broader context, then even small amounts of housing construction can seem like a lot. If one house goes up on my block it might be disruptive enough to make me think there's a lot of construction going on.
But by no objective measure is the UK building "loads" of housing.
But by no objective measure is the UK building "loads" of housing.
[deleted]
You can look up the numbers here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/...
About 120-200k per year, about 0.2% of the population. Though those numbers don’t include houses being destroyed or eg conversions from a large house to flats.
About 120-200k per year, about 0.2% of the population. Though those numbers don’t include houses being destroyed or eg conversions from a large house to flats.
The infrastructure issue is very much true. In my former town they got permission to build 2500 new homes on a patch of greenbelt land. In doing this they added a roundabout to the busiest road in the city, which is already suffering as it's a former country lane that is still fairly narrow.
They didn't build anything to support the new development at all, so now all the local schools which were already struggling from being oversubscribed don't have any capacity, meaning there's now a daily (paid) coach service taking kids to the next town to go to school.
Flooding has become a major problem in the area, the former field had a ditch system at the bottom of it, which no longer exists. That main road has now been closed on several occasions, and the older houses that run on the opposite side of the road endured several feet of water running through their houses last year. The solution? Slap a couple more drains on the road - those residents already know they'll be flooded again come winter.
They didn't build anything to support the new development at all, so now all the local schools which were already struggling from being oversubscribed don't have any capacity, meaning there's now a daily (paid) coach service taking kids to the next town to go to school.
Flooding has become a major problem in the area, the former field had a ditch system at the bottom of it, which no longer exists. That main road has now been closed on several occasions, and the older houses that run on the opposite side of the road endured several feet of water running through their houses last year. The solution? Slap a couple more drains on the road - those residents already know they'll be flooded again come winter.
UK's housing stock is the oldest in Europe [1], so the rate of new construction is definitely not high enough to be able to say there's loads of new construction. Compared to demand, and compared to total housing stock.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/02e104fa-5959-4723-8da0-7b2b072b6...
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/02e104fa-5959-4723-8da0-7b2b072b6...
In the US, but I find that to be a great point. I only see this mentioned in the context of environmentalism (city dwellers use less resources). But yes! They use less city resources too.
Like a lot of things in Britain there's a chronic lack of development, and a 'pass the buck' trend.
Our water infrastructure is another prime example. There's been no real investment in decades and the system we have in place was designed for a population in the 1950s. As a result our reserves are woefully inadiquate, resulting in the annual 'hose pipe ban'. The rhetoric around it has changed recently though. According to one of the water boards its "because everyones working from home", ignoring the fact that we've had these issues long before the uptick in WFH.
Our electricity supply is just as bad, although this is one area thats getting a fair bit of private investment with offshore wind, but the lack of storage ability makes this useless at certain times of the year, resulting in situations like we had in late 2022 where old mothballed power stations had to be turned back on to meet demand.
Our housing issues are extremely frustrating. What little development does happen is often carried out to the bare minimum specifications to pass building regulations, with houses that may as well be made of paper and rooms the size of clossets due to massive overdevelopment on each plot of land.
Really we should've been building 3-4 new major cities spread around the country. We've had a few smaller scale towns (Cambourne comes to mind) but they don't go nearly far enough to solve the issue.
We've also got huge swaths of abandoned industrial land in the north, and whilst there has been some regeneration it's often "premium" tiny apartments in places like Manchester and Sheffield, primarily being sold to landlords who then let them out to university students.
Our water infrastructure is another prime example. There's been no real investment in decades and the system we have in place was designed for a population in the 1950s. As a result our reserves are woefully inadiquate, resulting in the annual 'hose pipe ban'. The rhetoric around it has changed recently though. According to one of the water boards its "because everyones working from home", ignoring the fact that we've had these issues long before the uptick in WFH.
Our electricity supply is just as bad, although this is one area thats getting a fair bit of private investment with offshore wind, but the lack of storage ability makes this useless at certain times of the year, resulting in situations like we had in late 2022 where old mothballed power stations had to be turned back on to meet demand.
Our housing issues are extremely frustrating. What little development does happen is often carried out to the bare minimum specifications to pass building regulations, with houses that may as well be made of paper and rooms the size of clossets due to massive overdevelopment on each plot of land.
Really we should've been building 3-4 new major cities spread around the country. We've had a few smaller scale towns (Cambourne comes to mind) but they don't go nearly far enough to solve the issue.
We've also got huge swaths of abandoned industrial land in the north, and whilst there has been some regeneration it's often "premium" tiny apartments in places like Manchester and Sheffield, primarily being sold to landlords who then let them out to university students.
I'm not sure we have the ability to just build a new city from scratch. They already tried to build New Towns and politics got in the way, as detailed further in the article.
So the article claims that the housing construction boom that ended at the second WW led to a massive stock of housing, which has since declined due to planning issues, leading to a shortage of housing and therefore a rise in prices.
This does not hold up statistically.
1939: 11.3 million dwellings in the UK, population 47.9 million people = 4.2 people per dwelling
today: 27 million dwellings in the UK, population 67.7 million people = 2.5 people per dwelling
A thought occurred: maybe there are now fewer people per household. This however does not hold up to scrutiny either. The number of UK households rose 19% in 27 years, a rate comparable to the increase in housing stock.
If anything there is more housing than ever in the UK relative to population size. If prices have risen, it's not because of a lack of housing.
This does not hold up statistically.
1939: 11.3 million dwellings in the UK, population 47.9 million people = 4.2 people per dwelling
today: 27 million dwellings in the UK, population 67.7 million people = 2.5 people per dwelling
A thought occurred: maybe there are now fewer people per household. This however does not hold up to scrutiny either. The number of UK households rose 19% in 27 years, a rate comparable to the increase in housing stock.
If anything there is more housing than ever in the UK relative to population size. If prices have risen, it's not because of a lack of housing.
My understanding is it's because of lack of house in the places with highest demand. The article gives the following example:
"The economist Paul Cheshire notes that between 1980 and 2018 the declining industrial areas of Burnley and Doncaster built 56,340 houses while adding 22,796 new residents. By comparison, the high-wage university towns of Cambridge and Oxford built just 29,340 houses for a combined population growth of 95,079"
"The economist Paul Cheshire notes that between 1980 and 2018 the declining industrial areas of Burnley and Doncaster built 56,340 houses while adding 22,796 new residents. By comparison, the high-wage university towns of Cambridge and Oxford built just 29,340 houses for a combined population growth of 95,079"
> A thought occurred: maybe there are now fewer people per household. This however does not hold up to scrutiny either
what do you mean? it makes perfect sense given the definition of household that it'll be extremely similar to the number of houses. The ratio you're talking about is exactly a reduction in the average number of people per household.
what do you mean? it makes perfect sense given the definition of household that it'll be extremely similar to the number of houses. The ratio you're talking about is exactly a reduction in the average number of people per household.
Housing stock is growing faster than population. There are other more complex issues behind our inflating housing market than just ‘not enough homes’, but nobody seems to want to talk about them:
https://positivemoney.org/2023/01/more-than-building-new-hou...
In the Netherlands we don't really have a big NIMBY issue and we still can't keep up supply with demand. Supply is complicated and not just restricted by zoning.
One key thing to understand is that private companies build homes, not governments. And if it's not profitable to do so, it will simply stop. And if not at least 75% of the project is sold beforehand, the project is stopped altogether.
And this is how our government's ambitious plan to build ~100K new homes per year got crushed. In particular due to rate hikes, making mortgages even more expensive than before, so potential buyers opt-out.
This part is critically important to reflect on as it keeps happening. There's an economic downturn and the building of new homes slows down or stops. This happened over here from 2008-2014 creating a massive backlog, in turn leading to a pricing boom in recent years. Ideally, you'd keep building during a downturn but nobody knows how as there's no buyers and it's too big to subsidize. Hence, at least in the Netherlands, unaffordable prices are not due to zoning, they are a supply deficit based on downturns.
There's also labor shortage, material shortage/inflation, far more complicated construction due to the energy transition. And yes, higher than usual immigration is a factor. One of many factors.
And guess what? In my area, the grid is full. A few more homes can get connected but not a single new company can connect for the coming 10 years or so and it takes billions in investments to fix. This in reference to new housing supply having lots of other dependencies.
We also tried rent control on private rent. Guess what? The land lords simply sell the property, now you'll have even less rent supply. Well done.
My point being: increasing supply is not easy in this perfect storm. Surely the entire western world would not have this problem if it was a simple as a policy change. It very much involves constraints in the physical and economical world.
One key thing to understand is that private companies build homes, not governments. And if it's not profitable to do so, it will simply stop. And if not at least 75% of the project is sold beforehand, the project is stopped altogether.
And this is how our government's ambitious plan to build ~100K new homes per year got crushed. In particular due to rate hikes, making mortgages even more expensive than before, so potential buyers opt-out.
This part is critically important to reflect on as it keeps happening. There's an economic downturn and the building of new homes slows down or stops. This happened over here from 2008-2014 creating a massive backlog, in turn leading to a pricing boom in recent years. Ideally, you'd keep building during a downturn but nobody knows how as there's no buyers and it's too big to subsidize. Hence, at least in the Netherlands, unaffordable prices are not due to zoning, they are a supply deficit based on downturns.
There's also labor shortage, material shortage/inflation, far more complicated construction due to the energy transition. And yes, higher than usual immigration is a factor. One of many factors.
And guess what? In my area, the grid is full. A few more homes can get connected but not a single new company can connect for the coming 10 years or so and it takes billions in investments to fix. This in reference to new housing supply having lots of other dependencies.
We also tried rent control on private rent. Guess what? The land lords simply sell the property, now you'll have even less rent supply. Well done.
My point being: increasing supply is not easy in this perfect storm. Surely the entire western world would not have this problem if it was a simple as a policy change. It very much involves constraints in the physical and economical world.
> private companies build homes, not governments. And if it's not profitable to do so, it will simply stop.
> There's an economic downturn and the building of new homes slows down or stops. This happened over here from 2008-2014 creating a massive backlog, in turn leading to a pricing boom in recent years. Ideally, you'd keep building during a downturn but nobody knows how as there's no buyers and it's too big to subsidize.
If the return of demand was predictable then deep-pocketed investors could have kept the building running and made a big profit. Why didn't they? In my experience this is usually down to overregulation one way or another, either rules that make it too hard to invest in housing or because rules that make new homes a lot more expensive than existing ones (e.g. you mentioned energy rules, accessibility requirements, that sort of thing).
If the return of demand wasn't predictable, then stopping building was arguably the correct move.
> Surely the entire western world would not have this problem if it was a simple as a policy change.
The correct policy change is known but counterintuitive and unpopular. (And for many of the voting public it's not seen as a problem; they benefit from rising house prices, so who cares about the young people being priced out?)
> There's an economic downturn and the building of new homes slows down or stops. This happened over here from 2008-2014 creating a massive backlog, in turn leading to a pricing boom in recent years. Ideally, you'd keep building during a downturn but nobody knows how as there's no buyers and it's too big to subsidize.
If the return of demand was predictable then deep-pocketed investors could have kept the building running and made a big profit. Why didn't they? In my experience this is usually down to overregulation one way or another, either rules that make it too hard to invest in housing or because rules that make new homes a lot more expensive than existing ones (e.g. you mentioned energy rules, accessibility requirements, that sort of thing).
If the return of demand wasn't predictable, then stopping building was arguably the correct move.
> Surely the entire western world would not have this problem if it was a simple as a policy change.
The correct policy change is known but counterintuitive and unpopular. (And for many of the voting public it's not seen as a problem; they benefit from rising house prices, so who cares about the young people being priced out?)
> we still can't keep up supply with demand
Are you even sure that this is true? I'm French and I've been hearing the construction sector complaining about too low supply for my entire life to eventually learn in my 30s that we in fact have an ever increasing record number of empty houses…
> One key thing to understand is that private companies build homes, not governments.
You say this as if it was some law of nature, but it's not: states are completely able to build housing, it's just a political decision not to and leave the private sector do the work. And given that we've all been living in a “housing crisis” for post of our life, we can empirically conclude that the private sector is unable to provide enough housing.
> Surely the entire western world would not have this problem if it was a simple as a policy change.
As long as entire western world shares the same political ideology and have the same power structures, there's no wonder they face the same issues. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results
Are you even sure that this is true? I'm French and I've been hearing the construction sector complaining about too low supply for my entire life to eventually learn in my 30s that we in fact have an ever increasing record number of empty houses…
> One key thing to understand is that private companies build homes, not governments.
You say this as if it was some law of nature, but it's not: states are completely able to build housing, it's just a political decision not to and leave the private sector do the work. And given that we've all been living in a “housing crisis” for post of our life, we can empirically conclude that the private sector is unable to provide enough housing.
> Surely the entire western world would not have this problem if it was a simple as a policy change.
As long as entire western world shares the same political ideology and have the same power structures, there's no wonder they face the same issues. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results
The Netherlands has basically the highest long-term private:public building rate in Europe. Uk is second. Other Western European countries have publicly built units as a higher proportion, so it feels it ought to be possible for the Netherlands government to build more public housing. Doubt it’s necessary though. I expect there might be some kind of public-private middle ground that gets classified differently in NL, but that’s a guess.
So these are few basics reasons why people don't want new houses to be built in their neighbourhood in NL/BE: 1) New houses these days are mostly bought by immigrants, so they don't want to have more immigrants in their neighbourhood than before. 2) It decreases value of their property. 3) Resources get scarce quickly, one friend told me once the new building was sufficiently occupied, their nearest AH/Jumbo couldn't keep up with demand, and it caused very basic issues for all residents until new shops opened up about a year later. 4) More noise due to construction, dust and any other kind small issue. 5) A visual eye-sore, most new construction is tall, unappealing and borderline disgusting as it doesn't fit most post-war neighbourhoods.
As an immigrant myself, I feel disappointed looking at the state of new construction, but also I don't see how the government can fix this. If everyone complains not to build near their home then there are no new places to build houses.
As an immigrant myself, I feel disappointed looking at the state of new construction, but also I don't see how the government can fix this. If everyone complains not to build near their home then there are no new places to build houses.
[deleted]
one of the big problems is runaway costs (and not just due to grid upgrades and need for new transport lines, but because construction is still ridiculously labor intensive and undercapitalized), simply put it's at the same time too small scale and complex (and fragmented) to industrialize.
only scale can get the same quality for lower price. but construction happens in small batches. even though the inputs are very similar, there's no aggregate market force pushing down costs (as it's not trivial to substitute local inputs with cheaper ones).
and to get bigger scale folks would need to accept new technologies and of course new building arrangements.
and, obviously, no developed democratic government wants to risk such a big project.
only scale can get the same quality for lower price. but construction happens in small batches. even though the inputs are very similar, there's no aggregate market force pushing down costs (as it's not trivial to substitute local inputs with cheaper ones).
and to get bigger scale folks would need to accept new technologies and of course new building arrangements.
and, obviously, no developed democratic government wants to risk such a big project.
This is an interesting political trap for the ruling Conservatives that they have made for themselves.
The traditional Conservative voter is a home-owner. So you might be a rabid socialist in your youth, but once you get a job, save up for a deposit, and buy your own home, you eventually transition to become yet another middle-aged Tory voter.
That pipeline is now broken - young people are unable to save up for their own home or get a mortgage, unless they have generational wealth. House rises have risen sharply and wages have remained stagnant, and now we have inflation - for necessities like food and bills - eating into what little people had to begin with.
The solution of course is damn the torpedoes and embark on a massive house-building programme like in the post-war period, but a) the post-Thatcher Conservatives consider that against everything they believe in, and b) current home owners - their ageing voting base - are NIMBYs who don't want the wrong sort of people living near them and any reduction in demand that would reduce their value of their homes (and they're going to need to sell their homes soon, to pay for social and health care in an increasingly threadbare welfare state).
The British press of course likes to blame "woke millenials" or whatever to keep their geriatric readership happy but this is the real reason for the collapse in the Tory vote in the under 50s.
The traditional Conservative voter is a home-owner. So you might be a rabid socialist in your youth, but once you get a job, save up for a deposit, and buy your own home, you eventually transition to become yet another middle-aged Tory voter.
That pipeline is now broken - young people are unable to save up for their own home or get a mortgage, unless they have generational wealth. House rises have risen sharply and wages have remained stagnant, and now we have inflation - for necessities like food and bills - eating into what little people had to begin with.
The solution of course is damn the torpedoes and embark on a massive house-building programme like in the post-war period, but a) the post-Thatcher Conservatives consider that against everything they believe in, and b) current home owners - their ageing voting base - are NIMBYs who don't want the wrong sort of people living near them and any reduction in demand that would reduce their value of their homes (and they're going to need to sell their homes soon, to pay for social and health care in an increasingly threadbare welfare state).
The British press of course likes to blame "woke millenials" or whatever to keep their geriatric readership happy but this is the real reason for the collapse in the Tory vote in the under 50s.
Another trap they have created:
I am one of the millennials that managed to get on to the housing ladder by buying a one bedroom flat in London. Then the government significantly changed the fire safety and building safety laws and now the building requires significant sums of money spending on it until the flat will become sellable again. The person that owns the building is not required to pay for that - only the leaseholders.
There are hundreds of thousands of us trapped in this situation and it's not good for the Conservative Party. Many, like me, are now renting out their flats and have become so called "accidental landlords".
So - even many of the younger people who DID manage to acquire property have been screwed!
I am one of the millennials that managed to get on to the housing ladder by buying a one bedroom flat in London. Then the government significantly changed the fire safety and building safety laws and now the building requires significant sums of money spending on it until the flat will become sellable again. The person that owns the building is not required to pay for that - only the leaseholders.
There are hundreds of thousands of us trapped in this situation and it's not good for the Conservative Party. Many, like me, are now renting out their flats and have become so called "accidental landlords".
So - even many of the younger people who DID manage to acquire property have been screwed!
The whole concept of leaseholding is a reminder that Britain, despite its pretensions of modernity, is really just a feudal society under the surface.
> but once you get a job, save up for a deposit, and buy your own home, you eventually transition to become yet another middle-aged Tory voter. [...] That pipeline is now broken
Not unsurprisingly, I've seen the same theory/sentiment in the US as well: The conventional wisdom (whether true or not) was that aging voters would increase their support of the status-quo, but that doesn't seem to be happening, and the theory is that they aren't getting the same wealth/status that would cause them to be protective of it.
That said, we should also ask whether our story of "how it used to be" was actually (statistically, scientifically) true, as opposed to just being a common belief. There's evidence that one's political/party-leaning is actually consistent after being established earlier in life. [0]
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/07/09/the-polit...
Not unsurprisingly, I've seen the same theory/sentiment in the US as well: The conventional wisdom (whether true or not) was that aging voters would increase their support of the status-quo, but that doesn't seem to be happening, and the theory is that they aren't getting the same wealth/status that would cause them to be protective of it.
That said, we should also ask whether our story of "how it used to be" was actually (statistically, scientifically) true, as opposed to just being a common belief. There's evidence that one's political/party-leaning is actually consistent after being established earlier in life. [0]
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/07/09/the-polit...
> current home owners - their ageing voting base - are NIMBYs who don't want the wrong sort of people living near them and any reduction in demand that would reduce their value of their homes
New housing is directly against the interests of existing homeowners. Any plan that relies on people seriously disadvantaging themselves in order to benefit other people they don’t know is doomed to failure.
New housing is directly against the interests of existing homeowners. Any plan that relies on people seriously disadvantaging themselves in order to benefit other people they don’t know is doomed to failure.
New housing means the area is worthy of investment. Homeowners should want that for their communities, it makes their homes more valuable than those in communities that developers pass over. Plus the more people living in an area, the more pressure on housing, the more your single family home would fetch compared to a less dense area. Ask yourself if as an investor you'd rather own a single family home in some New Jersey farm town, or a lot in Manhattan?
Given the shortage of land available for new housing, there are very few areas developers wouldn't choose to build.
As a homeowner, I'd be opposed to most new housing developments in my area. New developments aren't backed by the same level of investment in local services such as transport, schools, and GP surgeries.
> Ask yourself if as an investor you'd rather own a single family home in some New Jersey farm town, or a lot in Manhattan?
I think this is the key flaw in your argument. I chose to live in a village, not a city.
As a homeowner, I'd be opposed to most new housing developments in my area. New developments aren't backed by the same level of investment in local services such as transport, schools, and GP surgeries.
> Ask yourself if as an investor you'd rather own a single family home in some New Jersey farm town, or a lot in Manhattan?
I think this is the key flaw in your argument. I chose to live in a village, not a city.
What investment?
Investment from anything. Developers looking to make apartments. People looking to open stores or restaurants. Community groups. These are all examples of investing time or money into a community, all of which affect property value. Given two homes in a city, one where you see new restaurants opening and new apartments and community events all summer, and one that's the same sleepy retiree community its always been, you can probably guess which one is more valuable.
Only if those people who are going to be disadvantaged have political power. If the majority stand to gain by new housing, and they can elect a majority of MPs under the UK system, then the NIMBY voice is moot (although there will be no doubt resistance at local level where much of the planning will take place).
Don't get forget a lot of MPs are landlords. And not just Tory MPs.
> and they're going to need to sell their homes soon, to pay for social and health care in an increasingly threadbare welfare state
Is this a bug or a feature? If the young (the workers) cannot afford to buy their own houses, because the old want to hold on to the value, how can we expect them to be able afford to pay for the welfare state and to take care of the old?
Is this a bug or a feature? If the young (the workers) cannot afford to buy their own houses, because the old want to hold on to the value, how can we expect them to be able afford to pay for the welfare state and to take care of the old?
The solution would have been to reduce population growth to a sustainable level more than a decade ago.
Put more simply: to be a conservative, one must have something to conserve.
> The traditional Conservative voter is a home-owner. So you might be a rabid socialist in your youth, but once you get a job, save up for a deposit, and buy your own home, you eventually transition to become yet another middle-aged Tory voter.
I think we're seeing that trend break now. Even those that can afford to buy (I count myself as one of those lucky folks, although the costs have been astronomical) I dont think the Millenial generation aren likely to switch to being Tory's, at least not to the same degree as previous generations.
Unlike previous generations where once you had your home you were 'done' Millenials have by far and wide had a worse deal, and will spend most of their lives struggling.
It's not lost on me or my peers that we as a group will struggle as we get older, with retirement age likely being in the late 70s by the time we get there, and the pension pot being significantly lower than previous generations.
Not to mention Millenials seem to have been the first group to actually question the whole 'working to die' situation we find ourselves in.
I think we're seeing that trend break now. Even those that can afford to buy (I count myself as one of those lucky folks, although the costs have been astronomical) I dont think the Millenial generation aren likely to switch to being Tory's, at least not to the same degree as previous generations.
Unlike previous generations where once you had your home you were 'done' Millenials have by far and wide had a worse deal, and will spend most of their lives struggling.
It's not lost on me or my peers that we as a group will struggle as we get older, with retirement age likely being in the late 70s by the time we get there, and the pension pot being significantly lower than previous generations.
Not to mention Millenials seem to have been the first group to actually question the whole 'working to die' situation we find ourselves in.
There's a decent amount of evidence this isn't quite true anymore. It does seem like Thatcher's Right-to-buy made for a lot of conservative new homeowners, but the conservatives appear to get less popular with modern homeowners over time(though they seem to split equally toward labour and further right parties like UKIP): https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/blog/2022/02/22/does-...
Sounds like a problem that will fix itself? According to you, do nothing and the Tories will be out.
A change of government won't fix any fundamental problems with housing/infrastructure. These are long-term problems and government thinking is inherently short-term.
Eventually they'll be out, but it'll take a lot of political willpower and capital to clean up the mess they've made in the meantime.
The problem is the gerontocracy as well as incompetence, lack of accountability if not outright corruption in some cases. The current system doesn't have adequate safeguards to defend against these issues and the problem will persist, Tories or not.
The British Army were fought to a standstill by communist rebels in Malaya. The war only turned when the puppet government was persuaded to give the peasants land and homes.
The thing is, I think a lot of millennials are that pissed off now that even if they got homes, I don't think they'd make the switch. We've literally had our fucking lives stolen from us. Most people I've spoken to don't want anyone to go through the same thing. Contrast with the boomers who got free education, cheap housing, stable employment etc and seem hell bent on denying everything to the next generation.
Something cannot both be a good investment and accessible to all. The decision was made to make them a good investment, and thus our lazy, entitled economy that is addicted to foreign goods and services became what it is today.
> Something cannot both be a good investment and accessible to all.
Roads are a perfect example of a good investment that is accessible to all. It's called a "common good", and it exists.
Roads are a perfect example of a good investment that is accessible to all. It's called a "common good", and it exists.
OP means something more like "a security which appreciates on average faster than inflation", AKA an asset I can purchase and hold and sell later for more than I paid for it+improvements in real terms.
I think we should shoot for house prices increasing at exactly the inflation level (after a correction for current high prices of course). To me, this would be good enough to be considered a 'good investment', and wouldn't be unfair to future generations.
I don't mean to be a jerk, and this isn't directed at the parent poster, but when someone makes an argument that contains an unsound point that in a vacuum cannot hold up, that unsound point critically degrades the entire argument.
When someone includes statements in an argument that can be trivially disputed, they should fully expect those weak points to be disputed. The rest of the argument, imo, does not deserve critique until the trivially disputable points are resolved.
When someone includes statements in an argument that can be trivially disputed, they should fully expect those weak points to be disputed. The rest of the argument, imo, does not deserve critique until the trivially disputable points are resolved.
I didn't make an unsound point, there was a misunderstanding by you. When talking about financial assets or investment, accessible means affordable, but affordable is a relative term, whereas somethings accessibility is a useful observation - "can working-class people buy one easily?"
Who's out here speculating on roads?
ASTM, sovereign wealth funds, etc. Toll roads can be a pretty good investment.
Nobody, and it should be the damn same with housing.
I think the parent commenter meant "investment" in the narrow sense of "financial security" and not in the broader sense of any activity that generates a figurative return for the effort applied — in the case of roads, turning government action into economic activity.
I mean in a financial sense. A good investment with a high guarantee of high return cannot also be financially accessible to all (read: affordable)
This is an easy explanation, but not the whole story -- single-family homes can be a good investment even while allowing the construction of apartment buildings.
Without the limitations of zoning, a single-family home could be worth the same as several apartments in a 4-plex minus construction costs. As density increases, low-density housing becomes more valuable, and high-density housing remains accessible, a process that then resets for the next generation.
Without the limitations of zoning, a single-family home could be worth the same as several apartments in a 4-plex minus construction costs. As density increases, low-density housing becomes more valuable, and high-density housing remains accessible, a process that then resets for the next generation.
Whats tricky is getting the investment to continue to be good once you are in the condo stage. So many condo owners hate owning condos because of how hamstringing it is. It seems like a natural march that one day a low density apartment will grow to a high density one, but how does that happen with condos? A few might not want to sell or go along with whatever change to the building and could hold up the entire process. Its like the situation where your nimby neighbors won't let you turn your home into an apartment, but now these people live in your damn building with you too. Its part of the reason why a lot of buildings in nyc are so old, turnover is tough when you have a building full of people already.
Doesn't need to be easy for any particular condo -- just needs to be more appealing to own (in) a 4-plex with a yard than a larger faceless tower?
You can't exactly force people to sell SFHs either, but that doesn't stop developers from finding a few adjacent parcels to join together. (Rather, it's not the difficulty that stops them, it's typically zoning.)
You can't exactly force people to sell SFHs either, but that doesn't stop developers from finding a few adjacent parcels to join together. (Rather, it's not the difficulty that stops them, it's typically zoning.)
Sure it can be. You can have some bare minimum of housing available in the boondocks which is cheap and accessible to all, and then have much more desirable housing which may be a good investment if the region is up and coming.
Every government has attemped to balance these two things, with tax credits, trusts and public/social housing tenders. But you cannot escape market forces on everything from materials, labour and the rest coming into play. The macroeconomic environment for it being a good investment needs to be build primarily, and then any accessibility intervention comes next.
At some point it becomes a government handout. Ok, so every person of 25 gets a 90%-off-your-first-home-voucher. So all the private companies building homes are getting 90% of their money straight from the government. This very quickly leads to a nimbyism/conservative local political environment which puts a stop to it.
At some point it becomes a government handout. Ok, so every person of 25 gets a 90%-off-your-first-home-voucher. So all the private companies building homes are getting 90% of their money straight from the government. This very quickly leads to a nimbyism/conservative local political environment which puts a stop to it.
[deleted]
The housing crisis is universal. There's been growing inability to build in many countries, as the article readily admits. People can't afford homes across the world: USA, Canada, Australia, even China, where supply isn't a problem per se.
The article should then address this global phenomenon rather than conclude it is a "political problem", suggesting it is some kind of peculiar ideology exported out of Britain.
The article should then address this global phenomenon rather than conclude it is a "political problem", suggesting it is some kind of peculiar ideology exported out of Britain.
So China has an overbuilding problem, right? To the point of demolishing apartment blocks, etc.
How does this marry up? Is it the age old problem of building too much in suburbs people don't want to actually live in? Or the old problem of new build apartments being too expensive for most people, so require a bubble?
How does this marry up? Is it the age old problem of building too much in suburbs people don't want to actually live in? Or the old problem of new build apartments being too expensive for most people, so require a bubble?
China's problem is two fold afaik: They allowed apartment buildings to be built that aren't up to code or even structurally sound enough to live in and must be demolished because they're completely unsafe, and all of the ones that were up to code were immediately bought up as investments and left empty by real estate speculators. Letting people have homes would kill demand and lower prices of course, can't have that.
This is hilariously wrong.
Yes in a country of 1 billion people there are dodgy apartments, but then again in my country of 26 million people an estimated 60% of new apartments have flaws, big ones in the middle of Sydney have been deemed unlivable only a few years after being built.
China overbuilds entire cities and everyone mocks them for it, but a few years later those cities fill up and people conveniently forget about that.
Even the commentator who coined the term Ghost Cities admits they have become functional economic powerhouses.
> Reporting in 2018, Shepard noted that "Today, China’s so-called ghost cities that were so prevalently showcased in 2013 and 2014 are no longer global intrigues. They have filled up to the point of being functioning, normal cities"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in...
Yes in a country of 1 billion people there are dodgy apartments, but then again in my country of 26 million people an estimated 60% of new apartments have flaws, big ones in the middle of Sydney have been deemed unlivable only a few years after being built.
China overbuilds entire cities and everyone mocks them for it, but a few years later those cities fill up and people conveniently forget about that.
Even the commentator who coined the term Ghost Cities admits they have become functional economic powerhouses.
> Reporting in 2018, Shepard noted that "Today, China’s so-called ghost cities that were so prevalently showcased in 2013 and 2014 are no longer global intrigues. They have filled up to the point of being functioning, normal cities"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in...
That's neoliberalism, baby.
You'll see the same pattern with healthcare, water, waste, media, energy, etc; every common good is being scooped up as much as possible by private interests.
The ultra-wealthy have a sophisticated playbook for doing this which maximises profit at the expense of the vast majority of the population. It's international.
A complicit media owned by the same private interests acts like this is all a big mystery, and any individual or group that gets too effective at making this plain is systematically irrelevanced.
You'll see the same pattern with healthcare, water, waste, media, energy, etc; every common good is being scooped up as much as possible by private interests.
The ultra-wealthy have a sophisticated playbook for doing this which maximises profit at the expense of the vast majority of the population. It's international.
A complicit media owned by the same private interests acts like this is all a big mystery, and any individual or group that gets too effective at making this plain is systematically irrelevanced.
Interestingly, I think it’s much worse in English speaking countries than other developed countries. The real estate problems in China are quite different, I think.
That article has one chart in it that isn't emphasized enough - home ownership in the UK is a new thing, and historically not typical. Perhaps it's going to become the 'new normal'.
Britain isn't flat, especially compared to Belgium and Holland, or even France, which is twice the size. And everyone wants to live in the South East because London is the economic centre, for better or worse.
The situation in the south east where we can either grow crops on flat land, or build houses, on the same flat land. And then house builders have the bare faced cheek to name the streets of the new estates after things they've destroyed or you'll never see again.
Which brings us to the spoke (and no wheel) arrangement of railway lines into London. HS1, and soon HS2 allowing more dormitory towns further out from London where the land is cheaper.
London also had a historic height restrictions on buildings, and even now, has restrictions if they block the view of St Paul's Cathedral.
When the 'new tallest building', the NatWest tower was built to a colossal... 600ft (183m), it was controversial [1] in the 1970s.
At least now there are tower blocks getting built in London that are tall. Except they're expensive, get bought out by foreign investors. And then left empty. So they're not much help to anyone other than speculators and developers.
It feels like something is going to break in the UK, but it's been like this for at least 30 years. It seems like far too much of the UK economy is based on this Ponzi scheme of property. You get better returns on property than any other kind of investment.
There's whole industries based off of the back of it too (personal investment, and corporate investment, and pension investment funds, estate agents, legal, builders, development, architects, etc.) and the vast amount of tax the govt. takes from all of that.
If the UK somehow gets the property market under control (whatever that means), it would have serious implications for the economy as a whole.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_42#Design_and_developmen...
Britain isn't flat, especially compared to Belgium and Holland, or even France, which is twice the size. And everyone wants to live in the South East because London is the economic centre, for better or worse.
The situation in the south east where we can either grow crops on flat land, or build houses, on the same flat land. And then house builders have the bare faced cheek to name the streets of the new estates after things they've destroyed or you'll never see again.
Which brings us to the spoke (and no wheel) arrangement of railway lines into London. HS1, and soon HS2 allowing more dormitory towns further out from London where the land is cheaper.
London also had a historic height restrictions on buildings, and even now, has restrictions if they block the view of St Paul's Cathedral.
When the 'new tallest building', the NatWest tower was built to a colossal... 600ft (183m), it was controversial [1] in the 1970s.
At least now there are tower blocks getting built in London that are tall. Except they're expensive, get bought out by foreign investors. And then left empty. So they're not much help to anyone other than speculators and developers.
It feels like something is going to break in the UK, but it's been like this for at least 30 years. It seems like far too much of the UK economy is based on this Ponzi scheme of property. You get better returns on property than any other kind of investment.
There's whole industries based off of the back of it too (personal investment, and corporate investment, and pension investment funds, estate agents, legal, builders, development, architects, etc.) and the vast amount of tax the govt. takes from all of that.
If the UK somehow gets the property market under control (whatever that means), it would have serious implications for the economy as a whole.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_42#Design_and_developmen...
> At least now there are tower blocks getting built in London that are tall. Except they're expensive, get bought out by foreign investors. And then left empty. So they're not much help to anyone other than speculators and developers.
I can't help but be reminded of this meme: https://ifunny.co/picture/big-real-estate-companies-intentio...
There is no circumstance in which it is more profitable to leave an apartment empty than to rent it out, and both speculators and developers understand this.
Other than that I don't disagree with you - there is a cottage industry around the 'housing only ever goes up' assumption, and a lot of legislative moats designed to ensure it stays that way. Until these are defeated - and I'm a lot less optimistic about the UK and Australia than the US on this - housing will sadly remain unaffordable for most.
I can't help but be reminded of this meme: https://ifunny.co/picture/big-real-estate-companies-intentio...
There is no circumstance in which it is more profitable to leave an apartment empty than to rent it out, and both speculators and developers understand this.
Other than that I don't disagree with you - there is a cottage industry around the 'housing only ever goes up' assumption, and a lot of legislative moats designed to ensure it stays that way. Until these are defeated - and I'm a lot less optimistic about the UK and Australia than the US on this - housing will sadly remain unaffordable for most.
If you wish to solve the housing issue then make it easier for individuals to build homes. Build quality in the uk is appalling anyway so why not streamline the process for people to buy land, build on said land? Also incentivise companies to allow work from home. There is no need for people to cram into overcrowded cities for jobs that dont require in office presence. That way folks can spread around, as i did, in cleaner, safer, less crowded areas of the country.
It seems like lots of places that used to build don't anymore (USA anyone) and detailed analysis about why a particular nation or sector is having issues is always helpful. That being said, I think there is also a background issue of much of the "democratic" (really oligarchic) way of governing being overall spent and exhausted.
It can't focus energy at anywhere near the intensity it used to. Compare the New Deal to recent infrastructure bills. Imagine building the CA Highway 1 today... that was one of hundreds of successful new deal projects.
But you can't repeat the past and we keep trying to with ever larger bureaucracies doing fainter and fainter imitations of the new deal.
It can't focus energy at anywhere near the intensity it used to. Compare the New Deal to recent infrastructure bills. Imagine building the CA Highway 1 today... that was one of hundreds of successful new deal projects.
But you can't repeat the past and we keep trying to with ever larger bureaucracies doing fainter and fainter imitations of the new deal.
Planning permission was granted for 2.78m homes between 2011-2021. Only 1.6m homes were built[0]. I find it interesting, given the length of the article, that this wasn't mentioned.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/08/over-1m-home...
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/08/over-1m-home...
That number could do with more details on how that number was counted. Apart from provisional permission (which still a lot of further planning effort), I know from bitter experience that a "granted" full permission does not actually mean you can build there yet. It's also possible for duplicate grants where only one of the permitted options can actually be built. It would need to count the number of houses which have been granted full permission and for which all pre-commencement conditions have been discharged. (Also, if the article is right and the number of applications has been increasing over time, it could well be that the majority of the not-(yet)-built houses are in the more recent batch).
Housing, housebuilding, planning etc is such a divisive topic, where everyone has anchored in to a heavy bias that there is little rational conversation. The problems are so poorly diagnosed that the solutions (that people then double down on) only worsen all the problems.
I don't necessarily agree. Different countries have different issues but in the case of the UK neo-liberal policy has clearly been the root cause.
Social housing stock was sold off, ostensibly to occupiers, at significantly less than market value. This comical scheme is still going on today, imagine the reaction of landlords if private renters were offered a 70% discount[0] on the purchase price of a property.
An interesting phenomenon occurred when the scheme was introduced as well, neighbourhoods were canvassed with offers to purchase the house they rented. Many of the people living in these houses wouldn't be approved for a mortgage, so on the same day many of these houses were sold at their insane discount, they would be sold on immediately to a private investor.
At the same time councils were prevented from reinvesting that capital in the construction of new housing stock. The result is that the UK has some of the highest rents in Europe and also some of the poorest housing quality. Privately rented flats are often full of mold, with tenants are unable to assert their rights due to fear of retaliation.
It has also contributed to the majority of the economy being centralised in London. Putting aside the intentional annihilation of the UK's productive industries for a moment. Private builders are incentivised to invest where demand is currently hottest leaving other regions to deteriorate. The result is that even more economic activity is now occurring in the region which encourages ever more economic concentration.
State provisioned housing is concerned with wider societal benefit. Short term profit matters much less, meaning they can invest in rural or currently unproductive areas in hope of nurturing economic growth there. This simply doesn't occur otherwise.
The power wielded by the kind of large enterprise encouraged by neo-liberal policy prevents the kind of organic growth that makes most communities a pleasant place to live. We can see that in the total dearth of parks, green space, local shops, doctors offices and schools in the UK's new build developments.
I won't go into much detail about the raft of other problems that neo-liberalism introduces but disposable income only recently recovered to 1960s levels, both members of the household are now working and yet they're often struggling to afford basic necessities. All of these contribute to the issue of housing affordability and provision.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/dis...
Social housing stock was sold off, ostensibly to occupiers, at significantly less than market value. This comical scheme is still going on today, imagine the reaction of landlords if private renters were offered a 70% discount[0] on the purchase price of a property.
An interesting phenomenon occurred when the scheme was introduced as well, neighbourhoods were canvassed with offers to purchase the house they rented. Many of the people living in these houses wouldn't be approved for a mortgage, so on the same day many of these houses were sold at their insane discount, they would be sold on immediately to a private investor.
At the same time councils were prevented from reinvesting that capital in the construction of new housing stock. The result is that the UK has some of the highest rents in Europe and also some of the poorest housing quality. Privately rented flats are often full of mold, with tenants are unable to assert their rights due to fear of retaliation.
It has also contributed to the majority of the economy being centralised in London. Putting aside the intentional annihilation of the UK's productive industries for a moment. Private builders are incentivised to invest where demand is currently hottest leaving other regions to deteriorate. The result is that even more economic activity is now occurring in the region which encourages ever more economic concentration.
State provisioned housing is concerned with wider societal benefit. Short term profit matters much less, meaning they can invest in rural or currently unproductive areas in hope of nurturing economic growth there. This simply doesn't occur otherwise.
The power wielded by the kind of large enterprise encouraged by neo-liberal policy prevents the kind of organic growth that makes most communities a pleasant place to live. We can see that in the total dearth of parks, green space, local shops, doctors offices and schools in the UK's new build developments.
I won't go into much detail about the raft of other problems that neo-liberalism introduces but disposable income only recently recovered to 1960s levels, both members of the household are now working and yet they're often struggling to afford basic necessities. All of these contribute to the issue of housing affordability and provision.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/right-to-buy-buying-your-council-home/dis...
Right to buy - was a "good" idea, give a one time discount so you dont have to pay for someones housing for the rest of their life. The proceeds (75% of) were given to councils and they had a mandate to spend it replacing the housing stock sold off. I have no idea where it went wrong, but it did.
> At the same time councils were prevented from reinvesting that capital in the construction of new housing stock.
They were formerly obligated to reinvest that capital in the construction of new housing stock. Current legislation forces the councils to replace the stock and gives councils 100% of the proceeds, but again it doest appear to work.
> Privately rented flats
I have seen nightmare land lords - and nightmare tenants. Its a wild unreglulated system full of the worst of humanity, along with estate agents. I have no solutions.
> Private builders are incentivised to invest where demand is currently hottest leaving other regions to deteriorate
Unironically I expect that government would build in the same places ... as these places have the greatest demands for social housing as well as being the hottest regions. Relocating people from "their home" to areas where the is less demand is one of the unacceptable solutions that I would propose and would be considered to be heartlessly destroying communities.
The social housing system is broken, social houses are free houses for life and its not uncommon to see multiple generations of families never live in any different environment. People who grew up in social housing in Kensington expect that they and future generations should be housed in Kensington.
Geographic mobility is nearly 0 as well. For those that do want to move to somewhere else, its a new council to apply to a new housing association, if you give up your (social) house in one place you go to the back of the queue.
> disposable income only recently recovered to 1960s levels, both members of the household are now working
The not working poor, the working poor and incresingly the middle classes are now poor in the UK. If you want to buy a home in the UK you can, there are lots of them for sale, but even if you reduced the number on the asking price sticker by 20%, 30% even 50% people just dont have the money. At 50% off though, the litteral bricks and wood of the house is worth more than that, let alone the land / labour etc to make a house.
> At the same time councils were prevented from reinvesting that capital in the construction of new housing stock.
They were formerly obligated to reinvest that capital in the construction of new housing stock. Current legislation forces the councils to replace the stock and gives councils 100% of the proceeds, but again it doest appear to work.
> Privately rented flats
I have seen nightmare land lords - and nightmare tenants. Its a wild unreglulated system full of the worst of humanity, along with estate agents. I have no solutions.
> Private builders are incentivised to invest where demand is currently hottest leaving other regions to deteriorate
Unironically I expect that government would build in the same places ... as these places have the greatest demands for social housing as well as being the hottest regions. Relocating people from "their home" to areas where the is less demand is one of the unacceptable solutions that I would propose and would be considered to be heartlessly destroying communities.
The social housing system is broken, social houses are free houses for life and its not uncommon to see multiple generations of families never live in any different environment. People who grew up in social housing in Kensington expect that they and future generations should be housed in Kensington.
Geographic mobility is nearly 0 as well. For those that do want to move to somewhere else, its a new council to apply to a new housing association, if you give up your (social) house in one place you go to the back of the queue.
> disposable income only recently recovered to 1960s levels, both members of the household are now working
The not working poor, the working poor and incresingly the middle classes are now poor in the UK. If you want to buy a home in the UK you can, there are lots of them for sale, but even if you reduced the number on the asking price sticker by 20%, 30% even 50% people just dont have the money. At 50% off though, the litteral bricks and wood of the house is worth more than that, let alone the land / labour etc to make a house.
In the UK, property developers are forced by the govt to build a certain proportion of social housing into their developments, or to subsidise the building of social housing elsewhere.
Obviously, this means the high end property is less desirable (because big spenders are forced to live next-door to social housing tenants). And the social housing built will be boxy and low standard, so again, less desirable, and unprofitable for the developer.
Whenever the govt distorts free markets, it creates shortages. And housing is one of those markets where we REALLY need the private sector to be allowed to build properties that will meet true market demands, rather than properties that will satisfy govt ideologies.
If housebuilding was unconstrained, there would be more of it, which would be good for people at both ends of the market. More high end property means lower prices at the high end, more people moving up out of mid-scale housing, and so on. Prices would fall across the board, and eventually no one would need social housing. We’d ALL benefit.
Whenever the govt distorts free markets, it creates shortages. And housing is one of those markets where we REALLY need the private sector to be allowed to build properties that will meet true market demands, rather than properties that will satisfy govt ideologies.
If housebuilding was unconstrained, there would be more of it, which would be good for people at both ends of the market. More high end property means lower prices at the high end, more people moving up out of mid-scale housing, and so on. Prices would fall across the board, and eventually no one would need social housing. We’d ALL benefit.
Social housing doesn't have to be bad. It has a (justified) bad reputation because of the crime and antisocial behavior it brings along, which it can do because law enforcement has completely dropped the ball. Social housing can be fine as long as any antisocial behavior is properly addressed by criminal prosecution and evicting problematic tenants.
The problem is that isn't happening in practice, and property managers themselves can't do anything about it (dissuasive measures such as CCTV no longer work from my experience, as in my building people from the "affordable" area - or their friends - are happily vandalizing doors and stealing mail in full view of the CCTV).
The problem is that isn't happening in practice, and property managers themselves can't do anything about it (dissuasive measures such as CCTV no longer work from my experience, as in my building people from the "affordable" area - or their friends - are happily vandalizing doors and stealing mail in full view of the CCTV).
This is bang on the money. And exactly describes the state of my building in London, perhaps you are my neighbour. In my case, we've just been given the option to vote (cause that always works so well) to take on a private security service to do the job the police are not able - control the drug dealing and ASB that's ruining the area. It strikes me as pretty odd that since a chunk of the development is social housing, is the state essentially paying for part of the private security?
For reference, this isn't always the case. It is possible for building companies to provide incentives to local authorities to bypass this (£££). Absolutely ridiculous but unfortunately true.
I don't know about Britain but London builds and keeps tearing down homes and low quality repurposing them into 3/4 units and creating a perpetual construction state instead of descentralizing.
Planning permits are questionable in their legality and you feel things just get rubber stamped and there's a pretense of process in the same vein of the first chapter of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.
Planning permits are questionable in their legality and you feel things just get rubber stamped and there's a pretense of process in the same vein of the first chapter of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.
To summarise:
- Lack of political willpower either due to competing priorities, or lobbying
- Banks and economy are tightly coupled to UK housing market
- Lots of people aren't willing to move to less desirable areas
- Lots of people want a McMansion with little/no maintenance
- Since WW2 we have been dependant on lumber from outside the UK for timber frame constructions. Its less so nowadays, but still a reason.
- Immigration + low supply = demand = profit!
- Lack of political willpower either due to competing priorities, or lobbying
- Banks and economy are tightly coupled to UK housing market
- Lots of people aren't willing to move to less desirable areas
- Lots of people want a McMansion with little/no maintenance
- Since WW2 we have been dependant on lumber from outside the UK for timber frame constructions. Its less so nowadays, but still a reason.
- Immigration + low supply = demand = profit!
>Immigration
Impossible! Brexit was meant to fix that. /s
Impossible! Brexit was meant to fix that. /s
It doesn't mention that most land in England is owned by large landowners, including aristocracy and the state. There is no real record of who owns what either. https://map.whoownsengland.org ... We have never really had a real land reform.
For people to be able to save and expand their wealth in land, land needs to remain desirable. Desire is driven by the need for housing. Need for housing stays high if the rate of new housing stays low. Thus, rate of new housing stays low. Else we would have a lot more very beautiful sky scrapers.
There are 100 ways we could solve this. And 100 groups, one to veto each way. So nothing will be done, it's the bystander effect.
The same basic thing prevents action on climate change.
The same basic thing prevents action on climate change.
The West has moved to a Vetocracy. It prevents things from becoming significantly worse, but also things from becoming much better.
I think nations always devolve into this if there is no leadership or central purpose...
TLDR: once people own a house, it is no longer in their interest to let anyone else build one, and in Britain this tail wags the dog.
Tldr: Churchill was a good wartime leader, but during his second term he screwed up the housing regulations so bad it broke up one of the longest conservative runs of all time with Attlee coming in to try and fix the mess.
At least in my and other countries, there seems no city with restrictions on moving in. Would solve some issues and stop making public sector, traffic worse for true locals. (HN seems to fancy a ban on Airbnbs, as if your quiet single tourist poses an issue...)
As if an ever-expanding human dwelling is desirable.
Immigration quotas for countries exist (well, at least for sensible countries), we should apply that on a regional and even local level too. And don't account for that typical Middle Eastern large family in such numbers, they shouldn't be there anyway.
As if an ever-expanding human dwelling is desirable.
Immigration quotas for countries exist (well, at least for sensible countries), we should apply that on a regional and even local level too. And don't account for that typical Middle Eastern large family in such numbers, they shouldn't be there anyway.
Hey come on 'Progressives', give me some more of your well-earned downvote ability! That's all you got!
TL/DR (according to ChatGPT-4):
The article titled "Why Britain doesn’t build" by Samuel Watling, published on 23rd May 2023, discusses the history and challenges of housing development in Britain. Here are the key points:
The article titled "Why Britain doesn’t build" by Samuel Watling, published on 23rd May 2023, discusses the history and challenges of housing development in Britain. Here are the key points:
Post-War Housing Crisis: After the Second World War, Britain faced a severe housing crisis due to strict planning rules enacted by both Labour and Conservative governments. These rules gave local councils the power to block nearly all housebuilding, with little incentive to permit it. Despite various attempts to address this issue, such as regional planning, a land commission, New Towns, and attempts to loosen planning controls, all of these efforts failed.
Historical Context: Britain's housing situation has been shaped by its historical context. From the Victorian period onwards, cities expanded with the help of trains, trams, and underground railways, creating the world’s first suburbs. However, housing supply collapsed during the First World War due to the mobilization of potential construction workers for the army, leading to a housing shortage and subsequent rent strikes.
Green Belts and New Towns: The concept of green belts and New Towns was introduced to control urban expansion. However, this led to a shortage of building land and an increase in its price from 1955. The green belt around London expanded from a 9- to a 35-mile radius, as neighboring counties rushed to end the prospect of displaced development from the original green belt areas.
Land Commission and Housing Production: The Wilson government set up a Land Commission in 1965 to deal with the shortage of land designated for housebuilding and the resulting high land prices. However, local administrations in the South East of England and the Midlands opposed the measures and refused to cooperate with the commission. The Commission was disbanded in 1970, leading to a flatlining of overall housing production in the mid-1960s.
Current Situation: The article concludes by stating that the housing crisis in Britain is not due to a lack of political will but due to a lack of understanding of the political dynamics of housebuilding. The author suggests that future leaders should learn from past mistakes and devise smarter strategies to address the housing crisis.One way to lower the house prices is slashing the demand. They can do that by limiting immigration.
"Since the Second World War, housing in Britain has become increasingly expensive and scarce. "
Net migration was 600,000 people for the previous year. It's not really a surprise.
Net migration was 600,000 people for the previous year. It's not really a surprise.
One word - corruption. Britain builds plenty but not on a social basis. Profit is king. To get planning permission costs money. Appeal committees must be bought. Britain is the most corrupt country not in Europe..
> Appeal committees must be bought. Britain is the most corrupt country not in Europe..
Local authorities refusing planning isn't corruption. And if you think Britain is corrupt I assume you have no familiarity with other countries.
Local authorities refusing planning isn't corruption. And if you think Britain is corrupt I assume you have no familiarity with other countries.
Local authorities refusing planning, then granting it when you write a cheque for 10k for the planning officer is corruption.
It wasnt a cheque, but a pair of first class tickets to the bahamas for the planning officer and their wife, totally worth it thought.
Its not even an open secret, its a known fact. https://www.theplanner.co.uk/2020/08/03/local-authorities-ar...
It wasnt a cheque, but a pair of first class tickets to the bahamas for the planning officer and their wife, totally worth it thought.
Its not even an open secret, its a known fact. https://www.theplanner.co.uk/2020/08/03/local-authorities-ar...
> councils should ensure all meetings between councillors, developers and their agents in major planning decisions are attended by at least one council official
Unfortunately many councils (including my own) are now run by an executive consisting of officials. People have known for decades that the planning committee is crooked; but I guess that's what you get in a university town where the uni owns most of the best land in the town, is the largest employer, and even used to have it's own parliamentary seat.
Unfortunately many councils (including my own) are now run by an executive consisting of officials. People have known for decades that the planning committee is crooked; but I guess that's what you get in a university town where the uni owns most of the best land in the town, is the largest employer, and even used to have it's own parliamentary seat.
> councils should ensure all meetings between councillors, developers and their agents in major planning decisions are attended by at least one council official
Of course council officials want to be in the room ... They want a piece of the action.
The planning officers were kicking back only a small portion of the bribes to the councilors and pocketing the bulk for themselves.
Of course council officials want to be in the room ... They want a piece of the action.
The planning officers were kicking back only a small portion of the bribes to the councilors and pocketing the bulk for themselves.
It is even worse than that. You just pay the correct people cash.
Indeed. It works like this: Planning is submitted and refused. Planning then goes to appeal. The appeal happens in another city with another committee. Members on that committee are paid to make the 'correct' decision and planning is granted. That is how city councils work. Nothing happens without someone being paid. From top to bottom. If you have the right connections and are happy to pay the job gets done.
I am very familiar with other countries. Britain is up there with the worst. Why do you think nothing works? By chance? Incompetence?
I am very familiar with other countries. Britain is up there with the worst. Why do you think nothing works? By chance? Incompetence?
> And if you think Britain is corrupt I assume you have no familiarity with other countries.
Why would what happens in any other country change whether Britain is (and it demonstrably is) corrupt?
Why would what happens in any other country change whether Britain is (and it demonstrably is) corrupt?
Remember: regulations are written in blood. You can't simply build things willy nilly. The Grenfell Tower fire is a recent and stark reminder of what happens when you don't apply a lot of trained and expert input into things.
Safety regulations are.
The reg that says I cannot raise my roof 6 inches to squeeze in a loft conversion because then it won't be the same as my neighbours is just a hangover from the 50s...
The reg that says I cannot raise my roof 6 inches to squeeze in a loft conversion because then it won't be the same as my neighbours is just a hangover from the 50s...
You can, however, build willy nilly copies of things that you've already approved previously and deemed are still habitable. Even that though is unpalatable, by right development hardly happens anywhere these days.
The thing that changes is where you're building it. China tried the cookie-cutter approach and see what they got: buildings falling down. It turns out that even if you approved something in one circumstance it doesn't apply to another. Since the ground conditions are different, each building is truly different.
This isn't software where you can put it in a Docker container. There's a reason why everything requires planning approval in almost every big city in America: lives matter. People matter.
This isn't software where you can put it in a Docker container. There's a reason why everything requires planning approval in almost every big city in America: lives matter. People matter.
If you got rid of cookie cutter buildings because they might be fraught then you'd have to condemn most of nyc and most of london. The home era boom these articles all cite came because they were just churning out the same floorplans or more or less the same buildings with the same materials all day. In the US you could even order one of these standardized homes from the sears catalog, have it shipped to you already cut and build it yourself or hire a contractor who does these same homes all day. I really believe we are letting perfect be the enemy of good here, and saying we'd rather tolerate things like people living in overcrowded tenemant conditions or in cars or tents, because that's the status quo today for many of the working poor with these prices, over potential unknowns of reusing a building plan.
They came from a different time when we didn't care about the lives of construction workers. We have unions now to protect workers' rights and we have regulations and code to protect people living in these buildings.
That's why they say regulations are written in blood. People have lost their lives so that we can have the rules and regulations that keep our standard of living so high.
We need more regulation, not less. OceanGate has just reminded us of that. We should take five souls worth of lessons to heart.
That's why they say regulations are written in blood. People have lost their lives so that we can have the rules and regulations that keep our standard of living so high.
We need more regulation, not less. OceanGate has just reminded us of that. We should take five souls worth of lessons to heart.
A lot of regulation has no safety purpose. Stuff like parking minimums requiring an expensive parking structure or space dedicated for surface parking, mandating x amount of units be rented under market rate, overbuilding elevator capacity, insisting on things like balconies, or void space for astroturf that reeks of dog pee. All of these things are sometimes mandated by ordinance or code, increase the costs per unit and limits the size of the potential build per construction loan, and these are costs beard by the renters ultimately.
Britain's energy-per-capita has collapsed since 1965 [0]. How are they meant to build houses and live in them without energy? Construction is one of the most energy-intensive activities we have, and maintaining a warm home is up there.
Britain is one of the usual suspects who listened to environmentalists, fought nuclear, let fossil fuels slide and bet big on renewables. They're going to need to have a bit of a focus on finding some energy somewhere if they want to reclaim the "glory" of even the 1950s. Standards have to drop.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy
Britain is one of the usual suspects who listened to environmentalists, fought nuclear, let fossil fuels slide and bet big on renewables. They're going to need to have a bit of a focus on finding some energy somewhere if they want to reclaim the "glory" of even the 1950s. Standards have to drop.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy
energy-use-per-capita. Not sure what switching to energy efficient lightbulbs and vacuum cleaners has to do with the collapse in housing supply.
Run me through, order of magnitude, where you think this 25% reduction in per capita energy use is coming from. Lightbulbs and vacuum cleaners aren't going to cover anything interesting.
Efficiency gains. Transport, combi boilers, electronic devices (such as TV) are all far more efficient.
Also the transition from manufacturing to service sector.
Quite likely that the inefficient burning of coal would explain away some of the difference. We barely burn any coal for electricity generation now, and residential coal fires are far less common.
Also the transition from manufacturing to service sector.
Quite likely that the inefficient burning of coal would explain away some of the difference. We barely burn any coal for electricity generation now, and residential coal fires are far less common.
You didn't even guess at orders of magnitude. Probably because if you had you'd be nervous.
> Efficiency gains. Transport...
Picking on this first one, population in the UK has gone from 50 to ~70 million since the 1950s. Transport energy use has risen from <30 to ~50 mtoe over the same period ([0], collapsed 2019-2020 for obvious reasons not related to efficiencies). Something increasing faster than population cannot account for per capita reductions in energy use. It is statistically impossible.
Ironically, thanks to the logic of Jevon's Paradox, transport probably is much more efficient. That is why it is consuming more energy per-capita than it did before.
And how much do you think electronics efficiency gains can explain since the 50s? Electronics didn't exist at any significant market penetration in the 50s. Computers may as well not have existed. Ditto phones.
What we're seeing is the UK de-industrialising, and likely that is being accompanied by reductions in goods availability (and building things like houses).
> combi boilers
How much of the 25% per capita energy reductions do you think this accounts for, and with what justification?
> Quite likely that the inefficient burning of coal
The BBC says there is an energy crisis [1]. They say global, China is surprised by that. Based on the countries they name, it seems to be a euphemism for "places with no fossil fuels". So much for these efficiencies gained by not using fossil fuels.
[0] chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60112068
> Efficiency gains. Transport...
Picking on this first one, population in the UK has gone from 50 to ~70 million since the 1950s. Transport energy use has risen from <30 to ~50 mtoe over the same period ([0], collapsed 2019-2020 for obvious reasons not related to efficiencies). Something increasing faster than population cannot account for per capita reductions in energy use. It is statistically impossible.
Ironically, thanks to the logic of Jevon's Paradox, transport probably is much more efficient. That is why it is consuming more energy per-capita than it did before.
And how much do you think electronics efficiency gains can explain since the 50s? Electronics didn't exist at any significant market penetration in the 50s. Computers may as well not have existed. Ditto phones.
What we're seeing is the UK de-industrialising, and likely that is being accompanied by reductions in goods availability (and building things like houses).
> combi boilers
How much of the 25% per capita energy reductions do you think this accounts for, and with what justification?
> Quite likely that the inefficient burning of coal
The BBC says there is an energy crisis [1]. They say global, China is surprised by that. Based on the countries they name, it seems to be a euphemism for "places with no fossil fuels". So much for these efficiencies gained by not using fossil fuels.
[0] chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60112068
Britain moved away from being a manufacturing to a service based economy which uses significantly less energy.
Energy use per capita has dropped because people are using less electricity, and generation has dropped to match. Power systems need to be operated so that demand very closely matched supply from second to second. If people use more, more power can be generated. The grid is not at capacity.
I agree with you that cheap, sustainable power sources need to be found but I’m not quite understanding your argument for why.
I agree with you that cheap, sustainable power sources need to be found but I’m not quite understanding your argument for why.
I mean, there's a few things inaccurate with this statement.
The UK's targets meet the very minimum which they agreed to with other nations (Paris Accords: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement) but are trotted out by the conservatives as if they're very forward thinking.
However, it was 2008 that the UK agreed that it would build more nuclear energy generation plants, and EDF planned to build 4 of those by 2017.
On 26 January 2017, the UK notified the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) of its intention to withdraw, following on from its decision to withdraw from the European Union. Leaving has wide-ranging implications for Britain's nuclear industry, including regulation and research, access to nuclear materials and impacts about twenty nuclear co-operation agreements with non-EU countries.
The UK withdrawal raises the question of nuclear fuel availability in the UK, and the need for the UK to enter into new treaties relating to the transportation of nuclear materials, which haven't even begun.
In 2020, nuclear power generated 46 terawatt hours (TWh) of UK electricity, just over 15% of gross electricity generation, and about half its 1998 peak of 91 TWh.
The new EDF sites aren't ready and are expected to be commissioned by 2026, just in time for Hartlepool and Heysham 1 to close down.
The UK's targets meet the very minimum which they agreed to with other nations (Paris Accords: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement) but are trotted out by the conservatives as if they're very forward thinking.
However, it was 2008 that the UK agreed that it would build more nuclear energy generation plants, and EDF planned to build 4 of those by 2017.
On 26 January 2017, the UK notified the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) of its intention to withdraw, following on from its decision to withdraw from the European Union. Leaving has wide-ranging implications for Britain's nuclear industry, including regulation and research, access to nuclear materials and impacts about twenty nuclear co-operation agreements with non-EU countries.
The UK withdrawal raises the question of nuclear fuel availability in the UK, and the need for the UK to enter into new treaties relating to the transportation of nuclear materials, which haven't even begun.
In 2020, nuclear power generated 46 terawatt hours (TWh) of UK electricity, just over 15% of gross electricity generation, and about half its 1998 peak of 91 TWh.
The new EDF sites aren't ready and are expected to be commissioned by 2026, just in time for Hartlepool and Heysham 1 to close down.
What kind of state throws up it's hands and claims "it can't" fix housing when states can do precisely that?
Thatcher's revolution in council housing is a cesspit of counterfactual outcomes. It made individual householders deliriously happy, enshrined them as Tory voters for decades and from shelter statistics left 1.5 million families functionally homeless. Millions live in penury, in squalid hotels because councils are disincentivised from fixing things, penalised even.
Australia's housing crisis is just as bad. Truly sordid tropes about rent caps and freezes are trotted out again and again, as if simply reciting them makes them axioms: they're not. All statements about effects on housing stocks are contextual and depend on other social policy, including (surprise surprise) building more rental homes by the state.
I'm a home-owner at the end of my working life. If I was a young person, this above all other things would radicalise me. Our elected leadership are captive to stupid market force arguments. I'd rather they tried and failed than sat on their hands.