Uber Has Lost

[Whorty]

French letter = condom

[mattster]

French letter = condom

Yes I know that! but why is D a French letter? If I could be arsed I would go back and read the original post, I must have missed something.

[BrilloPad]

Yes I know that! but why is D a French letter? If I could be arsed I would go back and read the original post, I must have missed something.

I read it that someone typed "?". But a reply must be 2 characters. So they posted a random letter in front.

Is this thread the most boring ever? Well at least since AtW posted about his sex life.

[Smartie]

If we build enough dwellings the value of housing will fall...

Of course, it's common sense isn't it? The trouble is common sense ideas are often wrong.
In theory, yes if we built a billion houses this year the cost would come down a lot however there is a limit to the capacity for building and the trend is actually decreasing supply since the 60's.
The recent high point was 200,000 homes built in 2007/8.
But, we have an increasing population and a greater proportion of people living alone so the demand is also increasing.
So, do you have any thoughts on what is 'enough' new build, do we have the capacity (or can it be increased) to build that many and do you have figures to support that assertion?

[Whorty]

Yes I know that! but why is D a French letter? If I could be arsed I would go back and read the original post, I must have missed something.

'D' wasn't part of the joke ... that was another posting just calling out a letter. Move away from the D ......

[Smartie]

Corporate welfare - exactly. This has been the hidden neo liberal business narrative for a long time now. Poor people are chastised for being benefits scroungers whilst rich corporates rack up billions upon billions in subsidies, grants and tax breaks every year whilst corporate taxes fall. Some estimates have this corporate welfare at around £100 billion a year, just in the UK.

If we get away from the neo liberal conspiracy stuff for a moment, let's remember the origins of these labour subsidies.

Gordon Brown introduced a welfare to work package with the idea that they didn't want people languishing on the dole for generations (thanks Thatcher!)
The step from unemployment to (low paid) employment was insurmountable for many because they lost among other things housing benefit which, due to the cost of housing in many areas, meant they were a lot worse off in employment and could not afford to get a job.

The idea was that sufficient benefits were still paid to allow people to take jobs which has many benefits psychologically such as motivation, self-confidence, mental stimulation, work habit etc.
So, it was a good idea at the time.

However, this has turned into a situation where the benefits have been taken for granted by companies who might otherwise have paid better wages, leaving many jobs at minimum wage with top ups from the government. The law of unintended consequences.

We do need to fix this and perhaps a higher minimum wage is the answer, though at a certain level that will reduce the number of jobs available.

My take on it is that we need a fair distribution of costs and benefits when looking at companies. The employees need a fair wage including the senior staff who need pay reductions. The shareholders (including those of us with pensions) need a fair return and the customers need a fair price and decent service. At the moment the balance is skewed to cheap goods/service for customers, high pay for senior staff and excessive support for share prices. The balance needs to be redressed to give low paid employees a better deal.

[vetran]

Of course, it's common sense isn't it? The trouble is common sense ideas are often wrong.
In theory, yes if we built a billion houses this year the cost would come down a lot however there is a limit to the capacity for building and the trend is actually decreasing supply since the 60's.
The recent high point was 200,000 homes built in 2007/8.
But, we have an increasing population and a greater proportion of people living alone so the demand is also increasing.
So, do you have any thoughts on what is 'enough' new build, do we have the capacity (or can it be increased) to build that many and do you have figures to support that assertion?

We have the figures for increase in population from ONS, we have the details of occupancy from ONS which due to culture changes such as blended families and multi occupancy for financial reasons still sits at about 2.4 persons per home distorting the real demand.

When more homes become available its likely the level of occupancy might change.

Overview of the UK population - Office for National Statistics.

The UK population has grown year-on-year since 1982 as seen in Figure 1. The 2019 mid-year population estimates release showed that the population of the UK reached 66.8 million, up from 66.4 million in mid-2018. This population growth marks an increase of 0.5%, or an additional 361,000 people, between mid-2018 and mid-2019. Growth in the year mid-2018 to mid-2019 was slower than in any year since mid-2004.
The UK population is projected to increase further; our 2018-based principal national population projections suggest the UK population will surpass 69.6 million by mid-2029 and reach 72 million by mid-2041 – increases of 4.2% and 7.8%, respectively, from mid-2019¹.

So growing at > 361,000 a year would suggest we need 150,000 dwellings a year. As we have not built anywhere near that for years we probably need to build > 250,000 a year if growth is to be exceeded and catch up building a million more homes in 10 above our established growth. In 2007 Labour built 224,000 the highest number since 1981 so 250,000 is close an the Conservatives planned to build this number every year to catch up.

Diggers, breeze block ready mixed concreate and prebuilt framed buildings were not that common in 1981. 40 years of building technology advance should help build more homes in a year than in 1981.


Mrs May's government released a report suggesting we were 1 million homes short 4 years ago and should build 1 million by 2020 - we are nowhere near this and we have had another million join our population.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...le_version.pdf

We also need to replace substandard homes, the 1960s towers we have painted with Petrol, the flats where you are burgled once a week because your neighbour needs a fix etc.

If we had more cheap housing we would consider removing these dangerous eyesores not put explosive lipstick on them.

I am still interested in you supporting your accusation that housing association dwellings are poor quality. Or a retraction.

[vetran]

If we get away from the neo liberal conspiracy stuff for a moment, let's remember the origins of these labour subsidies.

Gordon Brown introduced a welfare to work package with the idea that they didn't want people languishing on the dole for generations (thanks Thatcher!)
The step from unemployment to (low paid) employment was insurmountable for many because they lost among other things housing benefit which, due to the cost of housing in many areas, meant they were a lot worse off in employment and could not afford to get a job.

The idea was that sufficient benefits were still paid to allow people to take jobs which has many benefits psychologically such as motivation, self-confidence, mental stimulation, work habit etc.
So, it was a good idea at the time.

However, this has turned into a situation where the benefits have been taken for granted by companies who might otherwise have paid better wages, leaving many jobs at minimum wage with top ups from the government. The law of unintended consequences.

We do need to fix this and perhaps a higher minimum wage is the answer, though at a certain level that will reduce the number of jobs available.

My take on it is that we need a fair distribution of costs and benefits when looking at companies. The employees need a fair wage including the senior staff who need pay reductions. The shareholders (including those of us with pensions) need a fair return and the customers need a fair price and decent service. At the moment the balance is skewed to cheap goods/service for customers, high pay for senior staff and excessive support for share prices. The balance needs to be redressed to give low paid employees a better deal.

Oh leftie made up tulip! I'm right on , I hate fatch!!!

Unemployment in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Thatcher took over in 1980 at 6% unemployment (which had grown 4% since 1977) mainly due to the closure of manufacturing and increased automation. It hit 11.9% in 1982 thanks partially to a world recession and started falling




when she left in 1990 (a decade not a generation later ) it was 6% again, she had closed fewer pits than Labour and repaired the sick man of Europe mainly restructuring to compete with cheaper overseas manufacturers. The conservatives introduced YTS a scheme that helped me and many of my peers into work.

Which of the 6% have stayed unemployed from 1981 to date, I know of few long term unemployed people who didn't choose that life?

I have worked with many people who worked abroad or relocated south in the 80s/90s because that was where the jobs where.

Housing benefit distorts rental prices just as a housing shortage does.

We need to pay rent directly to Landlords and give them the ability to remove problem tenants fairly so landlords will consider welfare tenants. If you had guaranteed rent and good tenants why would you refuse to rent to them?

Councils could set the rent level and pay extra where there is a housing shortage.

Subsidising jobs is ridiculous if we have to suffer inflation to get decent wages then lets get on with it.

[Smartie]

I am still interested in you supporting your accusation that housing association dwellings are poor quality. Or a retraction.

Thanks for the figures. As for your comment above, you're going to be waiting for some time - perhaps you should ask the person who actually said it ;-)

[ladymuck]

Charts time! That escalated quickly