OT Migration and housing shortage.

What we all know already.

formatting link

Reply to
harry
Loading thread data ...

Problem is of course we are producing fewer offspring and hence there are not enough of us paying taxes to pay for services, unless you think gross mismanagement of funds is going on, something I could not of course rule out. The point is that indirectly if everyone who comes here works it is hope that the growing economy will mean the companies pay more tax as do the employees and the capitalist system goes on. However nobody seems to wish to grasp the nettle of housing, ghettoisation, Elite areas and property being used as an investment rather than being cheap enough for the average immigrant or otherwise to afford to live in. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

Surprise! An anti-immigration organisation manipulates the figures to 'show' that immigration is a major factor in the pressure for new housing. They do this by only looking at new households and, contrary to the facts, implying that they are the ones occupying new homes. However, the main factor driving the demand for housing in the UK is increased life expectancy, coupled with lower occupancy levels. It is the older population who can afford to buy new homes and in the past half century the average number of rooms occupied by each person has increased from

1.5 to 2.5.
Reply to
Nightjar

I don't like or share Harry's views but I also don't like the "it's not them, it's *them*" response .

I don't know what you mean by "a major factor". But I find it hard to see how immigration is not "a major factor" when DCLG's own forecasts did indeed show immigration accounting for 37 per cent of new households over the next 25 years. (And they were based on ONS assumptions of lower levels of net migration than in recent years.)

And I don't see how ownership of the housing stock has a first order impact on household formation and housing demand. A house houses a household whether as owners or tenants. And AFAICS effects such as people putting of forming households until they can afford to buy a house are taken into account in ONS forecasts of household formation, so would if anything reduce demand.

I also have failed to spot where the DM (or Migration Watch) imply new households formed as a result of immigration are "the ones occupying new homes".

Reply to
Robin

If new households were a major driver of the demand for new housing, then it would be a significant, if not the major, factor. However, as I said, it is primarily people not dying fast enough to free up housing stock and people needing more space than they used to that is driving the demand.

Reply to
Nightjar

and the rising number of divoced couples requiring two homes whereas only one was needed in the past.

Reply to
charles

that is of course not the problem. The problem is that tax money is extorted then a large percentage is just wasted.

Of the 3 biggest government paid projects near here that I know of,

1 cost 7 figures and was a 100% waste of money. Even the council effectively admitted it by reversing the work done at second great expense. 2 cost at least 10x what it should have done, with no benefit whatever from the additional spend 3 turned a fairly simple job into a massively larger one, with most of the work done making the amenity worse

I guess some might call it gross mismanagement. I call it stuck on stupid. This is one of the reasons that economic growth in some 3rd world countries is better than here.

the cause of high property prices is government stranglehold on construction. Doesn't take a genius to see how to solve that.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

No, overpopulation. An extra 15 million people in this country since I was a kid, all of whom need houses and infrastructure.

Reply to
Tim Streater

If the population wasn't growing we wouldnt need new houses.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

What please is your evidence that reduced mortality is the _primary_ cause of increased demand for housing?

If it is the claim made by eg Professors Dorling and Rowthorn then I have yet to see them accepted by the mainstream. It doesn't get a mention in ONS's reports on the effects of migration[1] or on household s generally[2]. OTOH the ONS do report the number of people over 65 living alone. 3.8 million in 2017 or 20 per cent of all families. In

(There is of course a distinction between the argument that pensioners have too big a share of the total housing stock and the gap between total demand and supply. So eg a pensioner downsizing frees up better quality of housing for a family but makes no difference to the total number of houses available to meet the demand for increasing numbers of households.)

I'm also puzzled by your "If new households were a major driver of the demand for new housing, ...". The the definition of "household" used by ONS is:

"one person living alone, or a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address who share cooking facilities and share a living room, sitting room or dining area. "

So I don't see how there can be more households without more housing.

[1]
formatting link
[This is in passing the one with ""Net migration (as assumed in the population projections) accounts for 37% of this projected household growth."] [2]
formatting link
Reply to
Robin

yes - and no. Divorces do not generate demand *in addition* to that from increased numbers of households. They are *part of* the increase in the number of households when one household is replaced by 2 households.

Reply to
Robin

Better occupancy ratio of existing stock...

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Perfectly valid argument but it does nothing to refute "ghetto" areas where immigration alone has blatantly driven up occupancy and rent/prices. Many people in these affected areas tend to have the skewed view that the whole country is the same as their local area and their opinions reflect this. In addition to this, the area I live in has seen relocation into it from other areas due to a combination of immigration and unaffordability of neighbouring areas. More than 1500 homes are currently being built in my local area, in addition to many thousands which have been built in the last few years. Every available pocket of land (aside from Green Belt so far least) has either been built on or has planning applications to develop. these would not be needed solely for the reasons you cite. Yes there is the obvious reason that there is a lot of profit to be made, that alone is a pretty powerful driver.

It would be crass stupidity to suggest that this level of house building does not then have an effect on roads, public services and for that matter public opinion. And people outside the area in "nice" sparsely populated areas wonder why there is anti-immigration sentiment, they do not see a problem simply because they do not have one.

If it wasn't for the effect it would have on the people who don't deserve it, I would love to see a housing market crash but I believe steps would be taken to prevent it. Too many vested interests and too much profit to be made. Besides all that half built housing would make us look too much like other countries where that exact thing has happened...

Reply to
Lee

If you swap a single pensioner in a 4 bed house for a couple + 3 kids in a 2 bed house you end up with the same number of households (2) in the same number of houses (2).

Reply to
Robin

If you swap an empty house for a house with 4 people in it, you get more households and the same number of houses.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Oh they do, as theh 'white flight' from inner cities starts to affect their villages too.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Given my tour of new builds in the last 2 years, they'll be disappointed then.

Quite apart from the garages that can't take cars, the shrinking footage is eye watering.

We have 1,400 sq. foot in 2 bedrooms, 2 lounges, kitchen, cloakroom (i,e loo/basin) bathroom, utility room, and bin store, with 2 hallways. In

5,000 sq. ft. of land.

Even the biggest 3 bedroom house we saw was only 1,100 sq. ft. The agent trying to sell it to us had no answer when we said we'd have to lose a room to move in.

Reply to
Jethro_uk

Must be some sort of national guideline (or conspiracy take your pick)...just looked at a local new build, just for curiosity, 1100 sq ft, including bathrooms, over three floors, mid terrace no garage, tiny garden. Laughingly described as "spacious family home" and *starting* at *only* £400K... Tbf that is the lower end of the price range for the area...

Reply to
Lee

It will crash when we have control of immigration. This is why certain Tories want immigration. And keeping wages down.

So we have low wages and expensive houses.

Reply to
harry

Oh, yes, that'd help. Though IIRC the number empty for more than 6 months is roughly enough to meet one year's growth in demand. And they're not all "buy to leave" flats owned by rich investors. Eg some are in places where there's no demand. Another batch are awaiting probate sale: it's not always possible to complete within 6 months of the death.

Reply to
Robin

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.