Is it a fallacy that simply building more homes will in itself resolve the house pricing crisis?

[servodude]

You know nothing of the sort.

I see that as a whimsical observation by someone who was born in England and senses that the nation has changed significantly from how it was when they grew up there.

I might have phrased it differently but I don't think you can predict any disposition for prejudicial behaviour based on that one sentence taken out of context. What was that TMF guideline - that we should give others here the benefit of the doubt?

nudge nudge wink wink say no more

If my flaw is that I recognise only 50% of genuinely racist incidents, then your flaw is that you recognise 150% of them

Don't put yourself down; I'm certain you know precisely what's going on

I'm certain you can take any given sentence from a poster and construe an argument for it not being racist
- as I pointed out earlier you like this stuff; you've displayed an knack for treading the line that some of the real hide behind

e.g. ere's one you prepared earlier:

.
I dislike all music inspired by blacks e.g. jazz, rap, hip hop, gospel, blues.
I like classical, country, folk, bluegrass and post-1960 rock.
Does that make me a racist?

You'll notice I didn't just quote it in a way that would have made it a racist boast
- I left it in its skin of plausible deniability

Now it might have been a spoof of a dimwit; fair enough
You might not know what racist really means; but that's not true is it?
You might not understand how post-1960 rock has been influenced by the Blues; that's your loss (but really come on read any interview with Jorma Kaukonen )

So what I'm trying to put across is I think most reading understand the joy you take in pushing what's acceptable (and some other's buttons )
- that's all part of the fun here and what makes it a great forum
- it wouldn't be the same without you

But every so often there's a real one turns up; but I suppose if he can sit with you that's fine
- I've got a dominoes game going on over here

-sd

[Lootman]

nudge nudge wink wink say no more

If my flaw is that I recognise only 50% of genuinely racist incidents, then your flaw is that you recognise 150% of them

I'm certain you can take any given sentence from a poster and construe an argument for it not being racist

There is hate speech on the one hand and PC wokeness gone amuck on the other. And then there are statements in the middle where reasonable people can genuinely debate the validity of any claim that an utterance is racist or not.

What is clear is that some people see mileage in exaggerating the racist element of remarks just as others seek to minimise such an interpretation.

If you really want to know at least what the official TLF view is, then you should report that post and see if it vanishes. Perhaps you already did? Last I looked it was still here which might be a clue.

[Adamski]

There is a chronic shortage of housebuilding, and the way to change that it for change in public policy to free up planning permission.

However this is politically unpopular cause of nimbyism.

No one wants new mega estates swamping their back yard.

Because of that we're building about 250k houses per year whereas needs to be more like 400k, like was in the early 70s.

There's a waiting list of hundreds of thousands for affordable housing. Net immigration of 300k per year. And the housing market booming as not enough houses on the market, so lots of buyers chasing few houses.

All this is great if you already own a house with no mortgage, just watch the profits roll in. But not so great for young people.

So don't see this getting solved as not enough political will there. Labour would do more in this regard do give them credit for that, even though I'm a tory supporter.

[88V8]

I guess if one were looking to justify a racist position they would likely not be the smartest knife in the drawer anyway..

Mmm, like the 'racist' assumption that the blacks and browns are responsible for the population increase and the excessive birthrate?
Well it's an easy assumption and of course not totally wrong, and if it's 'racist' to notice their contribution then it's difficult to have a discussion but amongst the chief culprits are the Poles... are they a race?... and of course that one-man population explosion Rees-Mugg... and some Jewish sects... are they a 'race'?

As an aside, it's puzzling, if one thinks about it that there is no volume Jewish-owned UK housebuilder, considering their proclivity for reproduction and settlement building. Perhaps being astute businessmen they've just concluded that there's no money in it.

Last I saw, the replacement birthrate - required to maintain the population - was 2.1 and that takes into account the death rate.
So anyone or if you insist any 'race' producing over 2.1 children adds to the population, plus of course the net immigration of whatever race.

Here we are The population growth rate in the UK is relatively slow at 0.6% per year. The fertility rate is only 1.8 births per woman, below the population replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman. However, a large part of this increase in the population is net migration, which was 626,000 in 2019. For the fifth year in a row, net migration was a larger contributor to the population change than births and deaths were.
and
The number of children born to foreign-born mothers has increased to encompass over one-quarter of the total population, and statistics from 2014 show that the fertility of foreign-born women living in the UK is higher than native women of child-bearing age.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-kingdom-population
Interesting site.

And here some 2020 data from the ONS The total fertility rate (TFR) decreased for UK-born women to 1.50 children per woman and increased slightly to 1.98 children per non-UK-born woman. and when we get to Fig 2, we see that the Poles are still in, errm, pole position. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2020

So, as I commented, if it were not for net immigration and the high immigrant birthrate we would have a reducing population, and ample houses.

Housing crisis? Deliberately created by the immigration policies of successive govts. Conspiracy theory ...

V8

[anon155742]

I guess if one were looking to justify a racist position they would likely not be the smartest knife in the drawer anyway..

Mmm, like the 'racist' assumption that the blacks and browns are responsible for the population increase and the excessive birthrate?
Well it's an easy assumption and of course not totally wrong, and if it's 'racist' to notice their contribution then it's difficult to have a discussion but amongst the chief culprits are the Poles... are they a race?... and of course that one-man population explosion Rees-Mugg... and some Jewish sects... are they a 'race'?

As an aside, it's puzzling, if one thinks about it that there is no volume Jewish-owned UK housebuilder, considering their proclivity for reproduction and settlement building. Perhaps being astute businessmen they've just concluded that there's no money in it.

Last I saw, the replacement birthrate - required to maintain the population - was 2.1 and that takes into account the death rate.
So anyone or if you insist any 'race' producing over 2.1 children adds to the population, plus of course the net immigration of whatever race.

Here we are The population growth rate in the UK is relatively slow at 0.6% per year. The fertility rate is only 1.8 births per woman, below the population replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman. However, a large part of this increase in the population is net migration, which was 626,000 in 2019. For the fifth year in a row, net migration was a larger contributor to the population change than births and deaths were.
and
The number of children born to foreign-born mothers has increased to encompass over one-quarter of the total population, and statistics from 2014 show that the fertility of foreign-born women living in the UK is higher than native women of child-bearing age.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-kingdom-population
Interesting site.

And here some 2020 data from the ONS The total fertility rate (TFR) decreased for UK-born women to 1.50 children per woman and increased slightly to 1.98 children per non-UK-born woman. and when we get to Fig 2, we see that the Poles are still in, errm, pole position. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2020

So, as I commented, if it were not for net immigration and the high immigrant birthrate we would have a reducing population, and ample houses.

Housing crisis? Deliberately created by the immigration policies of successive govts. Conspiracy theory ...

V8

I agree with you that Eastern Europeans have been some of the highest pressures on housing as well. A big problem is the obfuscation of statistics which are often done on ethnic statistics of white, black, east asian, south asian etc so it is easiest to split up broadly.

If it wasnt for immigration then the population would not have significantly increased since 1973, so all of the house building since then would have helped the problem of poor housing stock. Instead, demand has exceeded supply and has led to a lot of problems.

Whether it is a conspiracy, the Conservatives promised for a long time to get immigration down to 10s of thousands so they had recognised it was a problem.

[anon155742]

I think your post comes dangerously close to revealing a racist outlook -

I know that many posters (I dont think that would include yourself) are quick to label me as racist based upon their interpretation of the posts that I make even though I try to provide evidence for the claims that I make.

They make an assumption of the thoughts in my head, decide what my intentions are, then apply this defamatory remark even though it is specifically against the rules of Lemon Fool to do so.

I understand that I do not follow the thinking of the current cultural elites and that my views could be considered "anti establishment" so I dont blame them for going with the flow. I dont think their remarks should be taken down.

I will continue to make my posts when I think appropriate, particularly on my belief that the massive amounts of immigration to this country has been largely detrimental and should be stopped. Overpopulation is a serious problem.

[dealtn]

I will continue to make my posts when I think appropriate, particularly on my belief that the massive amounts of immigration to this country has been largely detrimental and should be stopped. Overpopulation is a serious problem.

So, to be clear, overpopulation driven by something other than (net) immigration, would equally draw your ire?

[anon155742]

I will continue to make my posts when I think appropriate, particularly on my belief that the massive amounts of immigration to this country has been largely detrimental and should be stopped. Overpopulation is a serious problem.

So, to be clear, overpopulation driven by something other than (net) immigration, would equally draw your ire?

Yes. It is sad to see the dessertification of large parts of Africa caused by population growth. Equally sad is the famine from population bubbles - for example, the population of Ethiopia was 40 million during the famine that Live Aid was in aid of and its population just now is over 120 million.

I think even the overpopulation of large parts of England during the industrial revolution was terrible as it resulted in shanty towns, terrible problems with disease and many other things.

[Arborbridge]

I will continue to make my posts when I think appropriate, particularly on my belief that the massive amounts of immigration to this country has been largely detrimental and should be stopped. Overpopulation is a serious problem.

So, to be clear, overpopulation driven by something other than (net) immigration, would equally draw your ire?

Yes. It is sad to see the dessertification of large parts of Africa caused by population growth. Equally sad is the famine from population bubbles - for example, the population of Ethiopia was 40 million during the famine that Live Aid was in aid of and its population just now is over 120 million.

I think even the overpopulation of large parts of England during the industrial revolution was terrible as it resulted in shanty towns, terrible problems with disease and many other things.

You and I agree with the problem of overpopulation, but it just seems that you are particularly obsessed with the problem with regards to black, brown and foreign people. The reams of statistics to try to prove your point about the UK followed by your alluding to African, Ethiopia (black populations, note) - cleverly tempered with a reference to white population growth in the 19th century (as though we have been innocent since then and it's all the foreigners' fault) - can you wonder really that folk are beginning to believe your obsession is racially motivated?

Frankly, I don't think you will get far with what can appear to be racist polemic on these boards - even if racist polemic is not your intention.

Arb.

[modellingman]

The driver of house prices, indeed the price of anything, is demand.
Prices are rising because our population is rising, due to net immigration and the excessive immigrant birthrate.

The solution is a policy of zero net immigration and disincentives for more than two children.
Reduce the population and the self-inflicted 'crisis' will evaporate, along with the damage to the natural world such as our sewage systems which I dare say coped OK at the population levels for which they were designed.
V8

Controlling immigration is not the solution, though euthanasia might be, as the biggest growth factor in numbers of households (the driver of housing demand) is the ageing population.

Household occupancy (the average number of persons per household) decreases markedly with age. As the population ages, the level of housing demand increases. Demand would rise even if the overall population size remained static.

ONS Household projections for England (2018 Based) (latest available)

Statistician's Comment

“The latest household projections show a continued rise in the number of households in England, at a level closely in line with what was previously projected. There continues to be much variation across age groups, regions and household types. We project the majority of household growth over the next 10 years will be because of an increase in older households without dependent children, particularly those where the household reference person is aged 75 years and over. This shows the potential impact of an ageing population on future household formation.”

[anon155742]

You and I agree with the problem of overpopulation, but it just seems that you are particularly obsessed with the problem with regards to black, brown and foreign people. The reams of statistics to try to prove your point about the UK followed by your alluding to African, Ethiopia (black populations, note) - cleverly tempered with a reference to white population growth in the 19th century (as though we have been innocent since then and it's all the foreigners' fault) - can you wonder really that folk are beginning to believe your obsession is racially motivated?
Arb.

Thats fine. I am happy for you to interpret the statistics in whatever way you feel and label them for others however you feel.

I will continue to post the "reams of statistics" for the others to interpret themselves.

[modellingman]

I will continue to post the "reams of statistics" for the others to interpret themselves.

Reams of statistics are all well and good but it helps if they are the right statistics. Population is a determinant of what ONS and other statistical agencies refer to as household formation and, as was pointed out much earlier in the thread, population size changes through the processes of natural change (births less deaths) and net migration (immigration less emigration). So statistics related to these factors are part of the story.

But they are only part of the story. What is missing from the picture, and has far more influence, is the link between population and households. At a descriptive summary level this is
represented by the average household size. At a deeper and more explanatory level it is represented by household representative rates (HHRs), sometimes called headship rates. Such a rate is the proportion of persons of a specific age and gender who are heads of households (or household representative persons to use ONS' terminology). These rates increase with age. A consequence of this is that an ageing population increases the number of households.

HHRs are derived in large part from the decennial census. Historically, HHRs have tended to show an increasing trend (over timescales of decades). When the household projections were published following the 2011 census there was some debate, not least in the formal examinations-in-public of local plans, about whether the stalling of these trends was a temporary "credit crunch" effect or whether it represented a more permanent change. When the results of the 2021 census emerge (possibly in 2023) we shall, perhaps, know a bit more.

Graphs showing how the HHR varies with age and gender can be found in Section 5 of this ONS report. Figure 7, in the same section, is also worth a glance. It shows shows how the average household size declined continuously over several decades.

[anon155742]

I will continue to post the "reams of statistics" for the others to interpret themselves.

Reams of statistics are all well and good but it helps if they are the right statistics. Population is a determinant of what ONS and other statistical agencies refer to as household formation and, as was pointed out much earlier in the thread, population size changes through the processes of natural change (births less deaths) and net migration (immigration less emigration). So statistics related to these factors are part of the story.

But they are only part of the story. What is missing from the picture, and has far more influence, is the link between population and households. At a descriptive summary level this is
represented by the average household size. At a deeper and more explanatory level it is represented by household representative rates (HHRs), sometimes called headship rates. Such a rate is the proportion of persons of a specific age and gender who are heads of households (or household representative persons to use ONS' terminology). These rates increase with age. A consequence of this is that an ageing population increases the number of households.

HHRs are derived in large part from the decennial census. Historically, HHRs have tended to show an increasing trend (over timescales of decades). When the household projections were published following the 2011 census there was some debate, not least in the formal examinations-in-public of local plans, about whether the stalling of these trends was a temporary "credit crunch" effect or whether it represented a more permanent change. When the results of the 2021 census emerge (possibly in 2023) we shall, perhaps, know a bit more.

Graphs showing how the HHR varies with age and gender can be found in Section 5 of this ONS report. Figure 7, in the same section, is also worth a glance. It shows shows how the average household size declined continuously over several decades.

That is a very good point.

The cultural change away from multi generational house has happened alongside extreme levels of migration which has compounded the problem. The leveling off in figure 7 is likely eastern european inward migration (like they suggested as a possible cause).

You could even say that the policy of extremely low rates has distorted older people wanting to move since they see a large house as a better investment than a bank account with 0.1% interest. You live in your "pension".

[modellingman]

I will continue to post the "reams of statistics" for the others to interpret themselves.

Graphs showing how the HHR varies with age and gender can be found in Section 5 of this ONS report. Figure 7, in the same section, is also worth a glance. It shows shows how the average household size declined continuously over several decades.

That is a very good point.

The cultural change away from multi generational house has happened alongside extreme levels of migration which has compounded the problem. The leveling off in figure 7 is likely eastern european inward migration (like they suggested as a possible cause).

You could even say that the policy of extremely low rates has distorted older people wanting to move since they see a large house as a better investment than a bank account with 0.1% interest. You live in your "pension".

10/10 for imagination but the commentary on average household sizes in shown in Figure 7 reads as follows:

It is unclear whether the trends seen between 2001 and 2011 were a blip in the long-term trend (this being an unusual decade due to EU Accession and the financial crisis), or the start of a longer-term trend.

There was a stall between 2001 and 2011 of the clear downward trend in average household sizes seen in previous decades. If you want to attribute this to EU migration, effectively, you are saying that a relative small group of EU migrants must have a much larger average household size than the rest of the population - back of envelope calculations indicate about 25% larger. Now that is possible but completely ignores the effect of the financial crisis on household formation rates.

As to the comment on older people, that's just a fanciful hypothesis on your part.

The point you are overlooking is that population growth is not the sole determinant of household growth. The biggest factor has been (and will continue to be) the ageing population. As people get older they tend to live in smaller sized households and this causes the number of households to grow.

[anon155742]

Graphs showing how the HHR varies with age and gender can be found in Section 5 of this ONS report. Figure 7, in the same section, is also worth a glance. It shows shows how the average household size declined continuously over several decades.

That is a very good point.

The cultural change away from multi generational house has happened alongside extreme levels of migration which has compounded the problem. The leveling off in figure 7 is likely eastern european inward migration (like they suggested as a possible cause).

You could even say that the policy of extremely low rates has distorted older people wanting to move since they see a large house as a better investment than a bank account with 0.1% interest. You live in your "pension".

10/10 for imagination but the commentary on average household sizes in shown in Figure 7 reads as follows:

It is unclear whether the trends seen between 2001 and 2011 were a blip in the long-term trend (this being an unusual decade due to EU Accession and the financial crisis), or the start of a longer-term trend.

There was a stall between 2001 and 2011 of the clear downward trend in average household sizes seen in previous decades. If you want to attribute this to EU migration, effectively, you are saying that a relative small group of EU migrants must have a much larger average household size than the rest of the population - back of envelope calculations indicate about 25% larger. Now that is possible but completely ignores the effect of the financial crisis on household formation rates.

As to the comment on older people, that's just a fanciful hypothesis on your part.

The point you are overlooking is that population growth is not the sole determinant of household growth. The biggest factor has been (and will continue to be) the ageing population. As people get older they tend to live in smaller sized households and this causes the number of households to grow.

It may not be the sole determinant, but the foreign-born population of the UK was estimated to be 9.2 million in 2019/20 - 90% of whom were residing in England (never mind their descendants).

That might have added a little bit of a upward pressure to demand for housing as well, especially as they age and live in small sized households.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/494/from-which-parts-of-the-world-have-migrants-come

[Lanark]

Housing crisis? Deliberately created by the immigration policies of successive govts. Conspiracy theory ...

This argument is trotted out by the gutter press on a regular basis, but it would only be true if nobody was building any additional houses.

If you look at the number of houses being built every year and compare that to the number of immigrants arriving, or if you prefer, the change in total population - there is no evidence of a housing shortage, not in the UK, not in Australia or anywhere else thats been seeing a boom in house prices.

What there has been a boom in is banks willing to lend large amounts of money at low interest rates.

Supply and demand is in action, but it is supply of credit and demand from people willing to take on that debt in order to buy increasingly expensive houses.

Back in 2010 prices fell by around 5% in 1 year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13331442

Was that because 1 million people suddenly left the country?
No it was because of restricted lending.

In 2020 as a result of Brexit and covid 1 million people did leave the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... dus-brexit

Did that affect house prices?
No because interest rates are still super low.

It's not about the PEOPLE, it's about the MONEY.

[Nimrod103]

Housing crisis? Deliberately created by the immigration policies of successive govts. Conspiracy theory ...

This argument is trotted out by the gutter press on a regular basis, but it would only be true if nobody was building any additional houses.

If you look at the number of houses being built every year and compare that to the number of immigrants arriving, or if you prefer, the change in total population - there is no evidence of a housing shortage, not in the UK, not in Australia or anywhere else thats been seeing a boom in house prices.

What there has been a boom in is banks willing to lend large amounts of money at low interest rates.

Supply and demand is in action, but it is supply of credit and demand from people willing to take on that debt in order to buy increasingly expensive houses.

Back in 2010 prices fell by around 5% in 1 year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13331442

Was that because 1 million people suddenly left the country?
No it was because of restricted lending.

In 2020 as a result of Brexit and covid 1 million people did leave the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... dus-brexit

Did that affect house prices?
No because interest rates are still super low.

It's not about the PEOPLE, it's about the MONEY.

Just looking at some figures:
The number of new households created in England is running at about 200,000 per year:
https://www.tomforth.co.uk/countinghouseholds/

But the number of new homes completed is averaging about 180,000/year for the last 30 years for UK, so I would take 15% off to exclude Scotland/Wales/NI to make the numbers comparable so assume 153,000 for England. There appears to be a slight rise to 170,000 (England) in the last year of data 2019.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/746 ... llings-uk/

This means that an extra 47,000 households per year in England have had to be accommodated by subdivision, sharing a roof, etc. That is the pressure that immigration is imposing on England.

On private sales, I read somewhere that the average number of properties for sale at British estate agents is currently at an all time low, and is clearly a reason why prices are escalating.

[Lanark]

Projected growth in households is very similar to that in the 2016-based projections. Between 2018 and 2028, the number of households in England is projected to grow from 23.2 million to 24.8 million, an increase of 7.1% (1.6 million). This equates to an average of 164,000 additional households per year. For the same period in the 2016-based projections, we projected an average of 165,000 additional households per year.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... households

The ONS and the statistics it generates are independent of government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_fo ... Statistics

[Lanark]

Yearly permanent dwellings completed in England

source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... dcompleted

Edit: Wales will add another 6,000-7,000 per year to those figures. Exact Numbers in the same s/sheet

[Nimrod103]

Projected growth in households is very similar to that in the 2016-based projections. Between 2018 and 2028, the number of households in England is projected to grow from 23.2 million to 24.8 million, an increase of 7.1% (1.6 million). This equates to an average of 164,000 additional households per year. For the same period in the 2016-based projections, we projected an average of 165,000 additional households per year.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... households

The ONS and the statistics it generates are independent of government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_fo ... Statistics

My link to Tom Forth explains a serious issue of credibility with the ONS figures (though I have no idea who Tom Forth is). The ONS changed their definition of households in 2011, such that their curve of household formation now has an unconvincing kink. As he points out, it is not believable that household formation rate should decline at a time of rapid immigration. The DCLG has a more consistent trend with earlier data. Why should the ONS data be more believable now, rather than the DCLG data?