The Lemon Fool

scrumpyjack wrote:But the elephant in the room he completely ignores is our massive increase in population and miniscule level of housebuilding. Someone should tell him about supply and demand

Oggy wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:But the elephant in the room he completely ignores is our massive increase in population and miniscule level of housebuilding. Someone should tell him about supply and demand

This is true, but the answer is not to tackle the supply problem by building more houses - invariably building them in wholly unsuitable areas - rather it is to tackle the demand problem of far too many folk - in England especially - all crammed together on this small rock in the N. Atlantic. Net migration should be hugely restricted and border controls enforced. Hundreds of thousands every year is simply not sustainable and creates havoc on housing demand.

Campaigners have warned that “procreation has become a luxury item”, after it emerged that the fertility rate in England and Wales had fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1939.

Official figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed “total fertility”, calculated based on the birthrate across different age groups, fell to 1.49 children per woman in 2022.

That is well below the rate of 2.1 needed to maintain a steady population without significant immigration. In total, there were 605,479 live births in 2022, according to the ONS, down 3.1% from a year earlier, and the lowest number since 2002.

Falling birthrates since 2010 have already prompted schools closures in many areas in recent years, including central London.

Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson of the Women’s Budget Group, which campaigns for more support for families, said: “We need the babies who are born now, because they will be the people whose taxes pay for our healthcare. These will be the people looking after us in our old age. These will be the doctors and nurses and care workers of the future.”

More working-age people report long-term health conditions than ever before. This trend is set to continue – projections from the Health Foundation’s REAL Centre show that around 0.5 million more working-age people will be living with major illness by 2030.

Since the pandemic, 470,000 more people are out of the workforce on ill-health grounds, while many more continue to work despite long-term health problems. The Office for Budget Responsibility has highlighted the mounting economic cost of these post-pandemic trends, and the government has recently announced proposals designed to address the UK’s ‘inactivity’ problem.

New analysis reveals that 3.7 million working-age people are in work with a health condition that is ‘work-limiting’, meaning it limits the type or amount of work they can do. This figure, which has increased by 1.4 million over the past decade, is now similar to the number of people with work-limiting conditions who are not participating in the labour market.

ReformedCharacter wrote:

Oggy wrote:
This is true, but the answer is not to tackle the supply problem by building more houses - invariably building them in wholly unsuitable areas - rather it is to tackle the demand problem of far too many folk - in England especially - all crammed together on this small rock in the N. Atlantic. Net migration should be hugely restricted and border controls enforced. Hundreds of thousands every year is simply not sustainable and creates havoc on housing demand.

Yes, but:

Campaigners have warned that “procreation has become a luxury item”, after it emerged that the fertility rate in England and Wales had fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1939.

Official figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed “total fertility”, calculated based on the birthrate across different age groups, fell to 1.49 children per woman in 2022.

That is well below the rate of 2.1 needed to maintain a steady population without significant immigration. In total, there were 605,479 live births in 2022, according to the ONS, down 3.1% from a year earlier, and the lowest number since 2002.

Falling birthrates since 2010 have already prompted schools closures in many areas in recent years, including central London.

Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson of the Women’s Budget Group, which campaigns for more support for families, said: “We need the babies who are born now, because they will be the people whose taxes pay for our healthcare. These will be the people looking after us in our old age. These will be the doctors and nurses and care workers of the future.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/birthrate-in-uk-falls-to-record-low-as-campaigners-say-procreation-is-a-luxury

And:

More working-age people report long-term health conditions than ever before. This trend is set to continue – projections from the Health Foundation’s REAL Centre show that around 0.5 million more working-age people will be living with major illness by 2030.

Since the pandemic, 470,000 more people are out of the workforce on ill-health grounds, while many more continue to work despite long-term health problems. The Office for Budget Responsibility has highlighted the mounting economic cost of these post-pandemic trends, and the government has recently announced proposals designed to address the UK’s ‘inactivity’ problem.

New analysis reveals that 3.7 million working-age people are in work with a health condition that is ‘work-limiting’, meaning it limits the type or amount of work they can do. This figure, which has increased by 1.4 million over the past decade, is now similar to the number of people with work-limiting conditions who are not participating in the labour market.

https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/what-we-know-about-the-uk-s-working-age-health-challenge

RC

Oggy wrote:What is your point other than posting irrelevant Grauniad opinion?

Mike4 wrote:

Oggy wrote:What is your point other than posting irrelevant Grauniad opinion?

I discern from the articles that while curtailing immigration to zero would stop the housing supply crisis deteriorating further, it would introduce a raft of other problems. Staffing and paying for the healthcare of large and increasing numbers of elderly people being an example.

Oggy wrote:

Mike4 wrote:
I discern from the articles that while curtailing immigration to zero would stop the housing supply crisis deteriorating further, it would introduce a raft of other problems. Staffing and paying for the healthcare of large and increasing numbers of elderly people being an example.

It's a deviation from the point, and I for one am not saying curtail immigration to zero. HMG or anyone else cannot absolve itself of tackling immigration simply by saying it would throw up other issues. Well boo hoo. Life is tough sometimes. With government comes responsibility, and with that comes problem solving, making decisions and dealing with possibly the most important issue the UK faces at present. This problem is not going away, in fact it is becoming worse and no-one is doing very much about it.

servodude wrote:

Oggy wrote:
It's a deviation from the point, and I for one am not saying curtail immigration to zero. HMG or anyone else cannot absolve itself of tackling immigration simply by saying it would throw up other issues. Well boo hoo. Life is tough sometimes. With government comes responsibility, and with that comes problem solving, making decisions and dealing with possibly the most important issue the UK faces at present. This problem is not going away, in fact it is becoming worse and no-one is doing very much about it.

It's not true that no-one is doing anything
There are plenty of fuds trying to argue that building more houses wouldn't help! How do you deal with a real problem with twats liken that taking up your bandwidth?

Oggy wrote:

Mike4 wrote:
I discern from the articles that while curtailing immigration to zero would stop the housing supply crisis deteriorating further, it would introduce a raft of other problems. Staffing and paying for the healthcare of large and increasing numbers of elderly people being an example.

It's a deviation from the point, and I for one am not saying curtail immigration to zero. HMG or anyone else cannot absolve itself of tackling immigration simply by saying it would throw up other issues. Well boo hoo. Life is tough sometimes. With government comes responsibility, and with that comes problem solving, making decisions and dealing with possibly the most important issue the UK faces at present. This problem is not going away, in fact it is becoming worse and no-one is doing very much about it.

ReformedCharacter wrote:

Oggy wrote:
It's a deviation from the point, and I for one am not saying curtail immigration to zero. HMG or anyone else cannot absolve itself of tackling immigration simply by saying it would throw up other issues. Well boo hoo. Life is tough sometimes. With government comes responsibility, and with that comes problem solving, making decisions and dealing with possibly the most important issue the UK faces at present. This problem is not going away, in fact it is becoming worse and no-one is doing very much about it.

A deviation from the point. That could be serious, I'm sorry about that.

RC

scrumpyjack wrote:But the elephant in the room he completely ignores is our massive increase in population and miniscule level of housebuilding. Someone should tell him about supply and demand

Lanark wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:But the elephant in the room he completely ignores is our massive increase in population and miniscule level of housebuilding. Someone should tell him about supply and demand

In 2007 prices fell by over 10% before they brought in "emergency low interest rates"

Did 6.7 million people suddenly leave the country in 2007?

Or is maybe the supply and demand equation to do with the supply and demand of credit.

Consider these two scenarios:

>> 5 extra people move into your street, squeezing into the existing houses.
>> The bank offer to lend you an additional £50K.

Which one is more likely to make you bid an extra £50K on your next house.
Right now we are in the situation where banks are saying we will lend you £50K less on your next house.

Nimrod103 wrote:

Lanark wrote:In 2007 prices fell by over 10% before they brought in "emergency low interest rates"

Did 6.7 million people suddenly leave the country in 2007?

Or is maybe the supply and demand equation to do with the supply and demand of credit.

Consider these two scenarios:

>> 5 extra people move into your street, squeezing into the existing houses.
>> The bank offer to lend you an additional £50K.

Which one is more likely to make you bid an extra £50K on your next house.
Right now we are in the situation where banks are saying we will lend you £50K less on your next house.

How do the five extra people move into the street unless they are paying rent or having their rent paid for them? That extra rent enables their landlord to bid up the price they are willing to pay for their accommodation. The illegal immigrants being housed in hotels at present - of course it makes the economics of owning a hotel better. Illegal immigrants being housed by other landlords - does it make the profitability of landlordism better or worse? Better of course. So the landlord can bid up their next property.

Much the same applies if those five extra people wanted to buy rather than rent. If they are economically active, they can borrow like anyone else.

servodude wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:
How do the five extra people move into the street unless they are paying rent or having their rent paid for them? That extra rent enables their landlord to bid up the price they are willing to pay for their accommodation. The illegal immigrants being housed in hotels at present - of course it makes the economics of owning a hotel better. Illegal immigrants being housed by other landlords - does it make the profitability of landlordism better or worse? Better of course. So the landlord can bid up their next property.

Much the same applies if those five extra people wanted to buy rather than rent. If they are economically active, they can borrow like anyone else.

Extra five people is really easy...
One old biddey pops her clogs and the family home she's been sat in for decades gets sold to a family with four kids... or at least that's what happened to my folks' neighbours' street

Mike4 wrote:

servodude wrote:
Extra five people is really easy...
One old biddey pops her clogs and the family home she's been sat in for decades gets sold to a family with four kids... or at least that's what happened to my folks' neighbours' street

Or even more simply, the couple in a house unexpectedly turns into three people. Or four or even five!

This seems to happen remarkably easily, so I discovered back in the day.

servodude wrote:

Mike4 wrote:
Or even more simply, the couple in a house unexpectedly turns into three people. Or four or even five!

This seems to happen remarkably easily, so I discovered back in the day.

...I didn't want to be the one that had to explain that to Nimrod

Mike4 wrote:

servodude wrote:...I didn't want to be the one that had to explain that to Nimrod

And I dunnit without mentioning that apocryphal stork anywhere!!

Mike4 wrote:

servodude wrote:
Extra five people is really easy...
One old biddey pops her clogs and the family home she's been sat in for decades gets sold to a family with four kids... or at least that's what happened to my folks' neighbours' street

Or even more simply, the couple in a house unexpectedly turns into three people. Or four or even five!

This seems to happen remarkably easily, so I discovered back in the day.

Lanark wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:But the elephant in the room he completely ignores is our massive increase in population and miniscule level of housebuilding. Someone should tell him about supply and demand

In 2007 prices fell by over 10% before they brought in "emergency low interest rates"

Did 6.7 million people suddenly leave the country in 2007?

Or is maybe the supply and demand equation to do with the supply and demand of credit.

Consider these two scenarios:

>> 5 extra people move into your street, squeezing into the existing houses.
>> The bank offer to lend you an additional £50K.

Which one is more likely to make you bid an extra £50K on your next house.
Right now we are in the situation where banks are saying we will lend you £50K less on your next house.

scrumpyjack wrote:-54% of homeowners do not have a mortgage