I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
But the same point does apply, only from the other side, the income side.
Imagine I'm an investor looking at property. I will value it as the NPV in perpetuity of the rental income it will generate. To work that out - the NPV - I'll take the annual rent and divide it by a suitable yield. The yield I use will depend on where interest rates are. The lower this is the higher will be the value of the property.
Or look at it this way if it's easier. If I can only earn peanuts on my cash in the bank it will make me more likely to want to buy property instead. This pushes up prices. Conversely if rates were now to double or triple (as they have) I'll be more likely to want to switch out of property into cash. This will depress prices.
This is not an opinion, it's just how it works. This is how you value an asset. The income it will generate capitalized at a suitable yield. With that yield depending on the interest rate environment.
Now that should be the dynamic, but why with our rapid rate rises have prices not declined in line with the formula?
Anyone who watched the Kamala speech, you didn't miss much. Nothing of consequence revealed other than Joe Biden is great. To be fair she was meeting athletes etc so it wasn't the right venue to start talking about her candidacy.
REally? I would have thought it was a great chance to say she was also running.
She's announced that already. TBF to her I think she wants to let Biden say his peace from the Oval Office once he's "recovered" from "COVID" (Delete the quote marks as you like)
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
Easy - If you build enough then people have a choice where to live and those who buy too many are left holding houses nobody wants to let.
So the owner needs to pay the bills and taxes for the house but has no tenant paying them.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
That asset financing costs are inversely correlated to asset prices isn't a good or a bad point. It's simply a fact.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Today, not only am I fired up to endorse @KamalaHarris for President of the United States, I’m proud to serve as a co-chair of her campaign.
In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a candidate they can count on to lower their costs, protect their freedoms, and build an economy that works for working people. Donald Trump is a convicted felon who stokes violence, overturned Roe, and drove our economy into the ground. We cannot let him anywhere near the White House.
Vice President Harris, you have my full support. Let’s win this."
Anyone who watched the Kamala speech, you didn't miss much. Nothing of consequence revealed other than Joe Biden is great. To be fair she was meeting athletes etc so it wasn't the right venue to start talking about her candidacy.
REally? I would have thought it was a great chance to say she was also running.
Quite. That's the first hurdle she has to clear, and there were other things for her to discus
Will TheScreamingEagles be okay to open up the donation pot or provide the link to pay.
It’s something I’ll ask Robert to set up.
With 5% (or maybe 50%!) earmarked for the Political Betting Very Special Fund for Misfortunate Punters and Perplexed Psephologists, which in turn will sponsor the long-awaited PB By-Election Trans-Potation Bottle Bus.
"Jay Slater and our true-crime-poisoned culture The cruel online response to the 19-year-old’s disappearance shows how real people’s lives have become fodder for content. By Sarah Manavis"
Jack Russell, it is always little ankle biters which are the worst.
Corgis too. These little bastards are actually bred to do that.
Didn't Princess Anne's Corgi go around murdering other dogs? I had a very drunken night in a bothy in the Cairngorms and was warned about the Beast of Balmoral.
Anyone who watched the Kamala speech, you didn't miss much. Nothing of consequence revealed other than Joe Biden is great. To be fair she was meeting athletes etc so it wasn't the right venue to start talking about her candidacy.
REally? I would have thought it was a great chance to say she was also running.
She's announced that already. TBF to her I think she wants to let Biden say his peace from the Oval Office once he's "recovered" from "COVID" (Delete the quote marks as you like)
Why the quote marks at all? Do you doubt that Biden actually has a case of COVID?
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
Of course you can, if supply exceeds demand and if supply can be easily created.
My first HDTV I bought cost over £1000, in then-money, which would be well over two grand in today's prices. Today you can get a bigger and better one for £200 in today-money.
Why hasn't the price of TVs gone up as we can afford to pay more? Why has it gone down instead? Because there's healthy competition in that market, but there is not in the housing market.
There's no reason why house prices can't go down by the same amount as TV prices have. If the barriers to entry to the market were removed so any skilled tradesperson could just build a house for anyone who wants one, rather than need an army of lawyers and a forest of paperwork first to get "permission" to do so, then they would come down.
Mass market consumer goods to income generating asset isn't a good comparison.
That's the mistake in your thinking, both are consumer goods. Consumers want a roof over their head and a screen to watch shows on.
If there's sufficient construction of homes then competition exists just the same as competition exists for any other good.
Both are assets generating incomes for those who own them who want to sell them/let them, but only if consumers wish to do so - which if there's sufficient competition then consumers have other alternatives instead.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
My gut tends to agree, but the objective evidence is with @HYUFD atm.
Albeit the evidence is fairly thin. This is why Biden should have stood down as POTUS too. Give her time to become a known quantity.
I would not be placing a bet at these prices, I am short Trump and long Kamala though. I expect to be able to short him significantly more in the 1.45 region in the near future, although it would be nice if I'm wrong about that.
Note that NYT and other media are reporting, that key reason Biden decided to withdraw from the race, were his campaign's own polling in battleground states. Which reportedly convinced him that following his disastrous debate versus Trump, he was on track to lose to DJT in November.
Yes. Here’s my theory on Joe Biden’s ‘journey’, see what you think.
He did intend to be a one term president - a ‘bridge’ - but this changed when Donald Trump came back into play as the likely GOP nominee. Having beaten him once, he considered himself (correctly at that point) the safest bet to do so again. Conscious of the threat Trump posed to the US and the wider world Biden now felt duty bound to run for a second term.
As his health deteriorated, he got kind of locked in and the situation became self-fuelling. At some point the ‘management’ of his frailties became a deception, including of himself, and the ‘duty’ started to look more like prideful stubborness, fed by his close circle. At the eleventh hour he mustered the humility and wisdom to do the right (albeit belated) thing. He’d become the opponent Trump wanted rather than feared and he realized this. Although informed by health factors it was primarily a political not a medical decision.
Anyone who watched the Kamala speech, you didn't miss much. Nothing of consequence revealed other than Joe Biden is great. To be fair she was meeting athletes etc so it wasn't the right venue to start talking about her candidacy.
REally? I would have thought it was a great chance to say she was also running.
She's announced that already. TBF to her I think she wants to let Biden say his peace from the Oval Office once he's "recovered" from "COVID" (Delete the quote marks as you like)
Jack Russell, it is always little ankle biters which are the worst.
Corgis too. These little bastards are actually bred to do that.
Didn't Princess Anne's Corgi go around murdering other dogs? I had a very drunken night in a bothy in the Cairngorms and was warned about the Beast of Balmoral.
Chap I knew used to bring his Jack Russell into the pub. Absolutely fine until someone else brought their rescue greyhound in.
Jack Russell, it is always little ankle biters which are the worst.
Corgis too. These little bastards are actually bred to do that.
Didn't Princess Anne's Corgi go around murdering other dogs? I had a very drunken night in a bothy in the Cairngorms and was warned about the Beast of Balmoral.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
One of the scandals in Birmingham is the thousand flats in Perry Barr built in 2022 and still empty. People are willing to buy them (with a mortgage) for £180k but lenders aren't willing to value them above £130k. In the end, they're all going to go to cash buyers who will rent them out or put them on AirBnB. The govt needs to do something soon to make sure young people can own homes like the previous generations could.
Now we're getting somewhere, thank you my friend.
The "why don't we build, build, build?" brigade clearly don't understand what's really going on in housing. Putting spades in the ground isn't the problem - putting keys in the front doors is.
The absurdity of having so much empty newbuild at a time when we are told demand is unprecedented is the absurdity of market driven economics.
"Jay Slater and our true-crime-poisoned culture The cruel online response to the 19-year-old’s disappearance shows how real people’s lives have become fodder for content. By Sarah Manavis"
A number of what I might consider to be Trump-leaning people in my orbit (that is, not full on Trumpers, but they raise Trump related talking points in a 'just asking questions' kind of way) don't seem to have settled on a line to take in criticising the Biden-Harris debacle, eg criticise the coronation of Harris, or Biden staying on, or criticising him being 'forced' out, I am curious what the strongest attack line will end up being.
"Jay Slater and our true-crime-poisoned culture The cruel online response to the 19-year-old’s disappearance shows how real people’s lives have become fodder for content. By Sarah Manavis"
"Jay Slater and our true-crime-poisoned culture The cruel online response to the 19-year-old’s disappearance shows how real people’s lives have become fodder for content. By Sarah Manavis"
Only the New Statesman could write a whole article about Jay Slater without actually mentioning why he didn't garner the usual amount of sympathy.
Why didn't he? Genuinely curious.
The machete attack carried out by teenager Jay Slater and others in 2021 could have been fatal, but for the heroic intervention of a young girl who threw herself onto the victim's body to save him.
Her bravery was hailed by the judge at the trial of Jay and seven others, who brutally attacked him with machetes, an axe and a golf club.
Judge Philip Parry commended the 15-year-old girl's courage, saying: 'This was an act that undoubtedly prevented him from being more seriously injured or killed.'
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
One of the scandals in Birmingham is the thousand flats in Perry Barr built in 2022 and still empty. People are willing to buy them (with a mortgage) for £180k but lenders aren't willing to value them above £130k. In the end, they're all going to go to cash buyers who will rent them out or put them on AirBnB. The govt needs to do something soon to make sure young people can own homes like the previous generations could.
Now we're getting somewhere, thank you my friend.
The "why don't we build, build, build?" brigade clearly don't understand what's really going on in housing. Putting spades in the ground isn't the problem - putting keys in the front doors is.
The absurdity of having so much empty newbuild at a time when we are told demand is unprecedented is the absurdity of market driven economics.
Except its not true, we don't have so much empty newbuild.
The proportion of empty houses is exceptionally low still. It should be much, much higher. For that we need to build millions more homes.
There isn't a single county in the entire frigging country with enough empty homes.
Reminds me of cycle2work. The most regressive active travel policy ever.
*Browes titanium gravel bikes at 42% off*
It's awesome, especially now there's neither a £1k limit nor a 1 year limit. I got a (not technically, but unnoticeable) free Orbea out of it. Used primarily for my commute from County Durham to Watford, of course.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
That asset financing costs are inversely correlated to asset prices isn't a good or a bad point. It's simply a fact.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
It's both in this case. Look, if you won't allow yourself to take any insights from me please look up how property is valued from an investment perspective. It won't take you long to get the gist. You'll see that yields/rates are key.
Farage called her Black then half-corrected himself to African-American but made a mess of it because it is not a term we use over here, so it is not in his muscle memory. I'd give him a pass here, even though I disagree with his wider sentiment.
What I'd like to know is why Farage is even commenting and thinks the next US Presidential election is any of his business?
He quite rightly criticized Obama's intervention in our EU referendum but is perfectly happy to stick his nose into America politics whenever he feels like it.
To be fair people pay attention to Obama. Cheap shots from the peanut gallery not so much.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
One of the scandals in Birmingham is the thousand flats in Perry Barr built in 2022 and still empty. People are willing to buy them (with a mortgage) for £180k but lenders aren't willing to value them above £130k. In the end, they're all going to go to cash buyers who will rent them out or put them on AirBnB. The govt needs to do something soon to make sure young people can own homes like the previous generations could.
Now we're getting somewhere, thank you my friend.
The "why don't we build, build, build?" brigade clearly don't understand what's really going on in housing. Putting spades in the ground isn't the problem - putting keys in the front doors is.
The absurdity of having so much empty newbuild at a time when we are told demand is unprecedented is the absurdity of market driven economics.
Except its not true, we don't have so much empty newbuild.
The proportion of empty houses is exceptionally low still. It should be much, much higher. For that we need to build millions more homes.
There isn't a single county in the entire frigging country with enough empty homes.
The question really is whose figures do you believe. I've seen a figure of one million empty dwellings in England but I've also seen much lower figures.
Part of this is the rise in the number of second homes and one of the questions might be what carrot or what stick (if any) could you offer to bring some of those houses onto the open market?
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
That asset financing costs are inversely correlated to asset prices isn't a good or a bad point. It's simply a fact.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
It's both in this case. Look, if you won't allow yourself to take any insights from me please look up how property is valued from an investment perspective. It won't take you long to get the gist. You'll see that yields/rates are key.
Except it's not in this case.
Interest rates collapsed in 2007 and house prices to earnings ratios didn't rise, they actually began to fall from their peaks and took years to catch back up.
Supply and demand are the problem. Demand surged in 2002 onwards due to both demographics and migration, but supply did not keep up.
A number of what I might consider to be Trump-leaning people in my orbit (that is, not full on Trumpers, but they raise Trump related talking points in a 'just asking questions' kind of way) don't seem to have settled on a line to take in criticising the Biden-Harris debacle, eg criticise the coronation of Harris, or Biden staying on, or criticising him being 'forced' out, I am curious what the strongest attack line will end up being.
Rest assured, intrepid GOP pollsters are on the case, and giving hapless survey targets the third degree from sea to shining sea re: this Brave New World.
Am personally waiting for Trafalgar to report their "findings" . . .
I've been really surprised by all the fire and energy around Harris as a candidate. Clearly coordinated, but there is a kind of desperate verve to the online messaging. People are keen to go into battle against Trump.
Will it last?
The anti-Harris peeps are also getting going. See the following tweet from Musk, where Harris describes who she is and what she's wearing in a meeting.
One thought about these just plain distasteful attacks that you get in american politics, is that whilst we are not at that point, I don't think we're as far away from it as we could be. See even some otherwise sensible people getting mad about things like Mordaunt and Raynor sharing a friendly post debate conversation, as indicating their political disagreements were performative.
Ostensible civility can still be a cover for some extreme rudeness, but some people even here see baseline respect for an opponent as bad. Thankfully a small number.
"Jay Slater and our true-crime-poisoned culture The cruel online response to the 19-year-old’s disappearance shows how real people’s lives have become fodder for content. By Sarah Manavis"
Only the New Statesman could write a whole article about Jay Slater without actually mentioning why he didn't garner the usual amount of sympathy.
Why didn't he? Genuinely curious.
Proven:
"A man who had his “skull split open” in a machete attack carried out by a gang including Jay Slater has broken his silence on the desperate search for the teenager who vanished in Tenerife.
The missing 19-year-old was part of a group of eight people who attacked Tom Hilton, then 17, with a machete, golf clubs and an axe in Rishton, Lancashire, in 2021.
The apprentice bricklayer, from Oswaldtwistle, was handed an 18-month community order with 25 days of rehabilitation activities and 150 hours of unpaid work for his role in the violent disorder."
He was involved in drug dealing and the thievery of high-end watches on Tenerife, which is why he was at a remote house of two men he had only just met.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
That asset financing costs are inversely correlated to asset prices isn't a good or a bad point. It's simply a fact.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
You have the history slightly wrong. Interest rates were at historic lows in the decade before the crisis. It was initially a financial bubble that was then propped up by demand-side factors like immigration.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
One of the scandals in Birmingham is the thousand flats in Perry Barr built in 2022 and still empty. People are willing to buy them (with a mortgage) for £180k but lenders aren't willing to value them above £130k. In the end, they're all going to go to cash buyers who will rent them out or put them on AirBnB. The govt needs to do something soon to make sure young people can own homes like the previous generations could.
Now we're getting somewhere, thank you my friend.
The "why don't we build, build, build?" brigade clearly don't understand what's really going on in housing. Putting spades in the ground isn't the problem - putting keys in the front doors is.
The absurdity of having so much empty newbuild at a time when we are told demand is unprecedented is the absurdity of market driven economics.
Except its not true, we don't have so much empty newbuild.
The proportion of empty houses is exceptionally low still. It should be much, much higher. For that we need to build millions more homes.
There isn't a single county in the entire frigging country with enough empty homes.
The question really is whose figures do you believe. I've seen a figure of one million empty dwellings in England but I've also seen much lower figures.
Part of this is the rise in the number of second homes and one of the questions might be what carrot or what stick (if any) could you offer to bring some of those houses onto the open market?
You say that like its a lot, one million empty dwellings is a pathetically low figure.
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
I've been really surprised by all the fire and energy around Harris as a candidate. Clearly coordinated, but there is a kind of desperate verve to the online messaging. People are keen to go into battle against Trump.
Will it last?
The anti-Harris peeps are also getting going. See the following tweet from Musk, where Harris describes who she is and what she's wearing in a meeting.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
But the same point does apply, only from the other side, the income side.
Imagine I'm an investor looking at property. I will value it as the NPV in perpetuity of the rental income it will generate. To work that out - the NPV - I'll take the annual rent and divide it by a suitable yield. The yield I use will depend on where interest rates are. The lower this is the higher will be the value of the property.
Or look at it this way if it's easier. If I can only earn peanuts on my cash in the bank it will make me more likely to want to buy property instead. This pushes up prices. Conversely if rates were now to double or triple (as they have) I'll be more likely to want to switch out of property into cash. This will depress prices.
This is not an opinion, it's just how it works. This is how you value an asset. The income it will generate capitalized at a suitable yield. With that yield depending on the interest rate environment.
Now that should be the dynamic, but why with our rapid rate rises have prices not declined in line with the formula?
I'd say that's mainly because of 2 things: General inflation is working in the opposite direction. Owners are reluctant to take lower prices than everyone got used to and they don't sell. Volumes take the strain more than prices. Probable impact? - rather than a large and speedy negative correction we get a longish period of quite stable prices, either static or rises below the rise in wages and prices in general. Which wouldn't be such a terrible outcome imo.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
One thought about these just plain distasteful attacks that you get in american politics, is that whilst we are not at that point, I don't think we're as far away from it as we could be. See even some otherwise sensible people getting mad about things like Mordaunt and Raynor sharing a friendly post debate conversation, as indicating their political disagreements were performative.
Ostensible civility can still be a cover for some extreme rudeness, but some people even here see baseline respect for an opponent as bad. Thankfully a small number.
People love to get angry about things they have no control over.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Entirely seriously, I cannot conceive of hating a rival political party enough to support people quite so rude and offensive.
Manners are not everything, not even close when it comes to policy, but the vulgar, crass, insulting behaviour is just so disgraceful.
MAGA-GOP freakout over KH speaks volumes.
Similar but worse than the Keir Fear so prevalent among subset of PBers.
And this is what I dared to hope that trump and co don't have a strategy for dealing with a young black female, and go properly mad trying
Isn't that Vance quote a direct lift from Leadsom's attack on Mrs May during leadership election???
Shades of the Joe Biden cribbing Neal Kinnock scandal of 1987?
Amazing what used to destroy a campaign in those days. Who was that chap who lost support because he yelled loudly in a way that sounded embarrassing on TV?
One thought about these just plain distasteful attacks that you get in american politics, is that whilst we are not at that point, I don't think we're as far away from it as we could be. See even some otherwise sensible people getting mad about things like Mordaunt and Raynor sharing a friendly post debate conversation, as indicating their political disagreements were performative.
Ostensible civility can still be a cover for some extreme rudeness, but some people even here see baseline respect for an opponent as bad. Thankfully a small number.
People love to get angry about things they have no control over.
Not in the USA. Perfectly normal, the only shock is she is not already in Congress with MTG and the others.
Just for added context the ‘other woman’ in the pic is Montel Williams’ daughter. These people really don’t care about the truth or facts, the more luridly dishonest the better.
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
I've been really surprised by all the fire and energy around Harris as a candidate. Clearly coordinated, but there is a kind of desperate verve to the online messaging. People are keen to go into battle against Trump.
Will it last?
The anti-Harris peeps are also getting going. See the following tweet from Musk, where Harris describes who she is and what she's wearing in a meeting.
It turns out she was addressing a meeting of disabled people, some of whom were blind.
Musk is a real ****.
Indeed. A douche who supports a douche.
Musk appears to believe anything he reads which supports his opinions. I hope for his businesses he is very different when on the job.
Well, he has also been extremely ruthless in taking intellectual property from discoverers and founders and exploiting his gains in a way that could be described, at best, as ungentlemanly.
I've been really surprised by all the fire and energy around Harris as a candidate. Clearly coordinated, but there is a kind of desperate verve to the online messaging. People are keen to go into battle against Trump.
Will it last?
The anti-Harris peeps are also getting going. See the following tweet from Musk, where Harris describes who she is and what she's wearing in a meeting.
It turns out she was addressing a meeting of disabled people, some of whom were blind.
Musk is a real ****.
Indeed. A douche who supports a douche.
Musk appears to believe anything he reads which supports his opinions. I hope for his businesses he is very different when on the job.
It's only a couple of years back that he declared Trump too old to run again ("far too old to be chief exec of anything, let alone the US"), and said DeSantis would wipe the floor electorally.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
That asset financing costs are inversely correlated to asset prices isn't a good or a bad point. It's simply a fact.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
It's both in this case. Look, if you won't allow yourself to take any insights from me please look up how property is valued from an investment perspective. It won't take you long to get the gist. You'll see that yields/rates are key.
That is the heart of the problem. Property is not an investment, or ought not to be. Property is just a place for people to live.
The answer, imho, is to tax land for all it is worth, whether it has been built on or not. Once we, the people through the planning authorities, have identified a piece of land as appropriate for development, we ought to tax it as thought it had been developed. That would end the nonsense about developers just sitting on lan without building when they already have been granted permission, and in passing, "investors" who just buy up property and leave it empty while theyr wait for its value to rise. A lot of them forgeigners, criminals and tax dodgers, of course.
Labour, at one stage, was considering Land Site Value Taxation, but I think they are much too timid to do anythng about it.
Fortunately, we now have a lot of Lib Dem MPs to keep making the point.
"Jay Slater and our true-crime-poisoned culture The cruel online response to the 19-year-old’s disappearance shows how real people’s lives have become fodder for content. By Sarah Manavis"
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
You were highly doubting Buttigieg would endorse Harris this morning.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Entirely seriously, I cannot conceive of hating a rival political party enough to support people quite so rude and offensive.
Manners are not everything, not even close when it comes to policy, but the vulgar, crass, insulting behaviour is just so disgraceful.
MAGA-GOP freakout over KH speaks volumes.
Similar but worse than the Keir Fear so prevalent among subset of PBers.
And this is what I dared to hope that trump and co don't have a strategy for dealing with a young black female, and go properly mad trying
Isn't that Vance quote a direct lift from Leadsom's attack on Mrs May during leadership election???
Shades of the Joe Biden cribbing Neal Kinnock scandal of 1987?
Amazing what used to destroy a campaign in those days. Who was that chap who lost support because he yelled loudly in a way that sounded embarrassing on TV?
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
That asset financing costs are inversely correlated to asset prices isn't a good or a bad point. It's simply a fact.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
It's both in this case. Look, if you won't allow yourself to take any insights from me please look up how property is valued from an investment perspective. It won't take you long to get the gist. You'll see that yields/rates are key.
Except it's not in this case.
Interest rates collapsed in 2007 and house prices to earnings ratios didn't rise, they actually began to fall from their peaks and took years to catch back up.
Supply and demand are the problem. Demand surged in 2002 onwards due to both demographics and migration, but supply did not keep up.
We can pick this up again when you've educated yourself on how yields impact property valuation. As I say, it won't take you long. Just give me a shout.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Entirely seriously, I cannot conceive of hating a rival political party enough to support people quite so rude and offensive.
Manners are not everything, not even close when it comes to policy, but the vulgar, crass, insulting behaviour is just so disgraceful.
MAGA-GOP freakout over KH speaks volumes.
Similar but worse than the Keir Fear so prevalent among subset of PBers.
And this is what I dared to hope that trump and co don't have a strategy for dealing with a young black female, and go properly mad trying
Isn't that Vance quote a direct lift from Leadsom's attack on Mrs May during leadership election???
Shades of the Joe Biden cribbing Neal Kinnock scandal of 1987?
Amazing what used to destroy a campaign in those days. Who was that chap who lost support because he yelled loudly in a way that sounded embarrassing on TV?
Howard Dean in 2004, following his poor showing in Iowa precinct caucuses, which failed to achieve expectations:
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Anyone who watched the Kamala speech, you didn't miss much. Nothing of consequence revealed other than Joe Biden is great. To be fair she was meeting athletes etc so it wasn't the right venue to start talking about her candidacy.
It's verboten to campaign in the grounds of the White house.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
That asset financing costs are inversely correlated to asset prices isn't a good or a bad point. It's simply a fact.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
It's both in this case. Look, if you won't allow yourself to take any insights from me please look up how property is valued from an investment perspective. It won't take you long to get the gist. You'll see that yields/rates are key.
That is the heart of the problem. Property is not an investment, or ought not to be. Property is just a place for people to live.
The answer, imho, is to tax land for all it is worth, whether it has been built on or not. Once we, the people through the planning authorities, have identified a piece of land as appropriate for development, we ought to tax it as thought it had been developed. That would end the nonsense about developers just sitting on lan without building when they already have been granted permission, and in passing, "investors" who just buy up property and leave it empty while theyr wait for its value to rise. A lot of them forgeigners, criminals and tax dodgers, of course.
Labour, at one stage, was considering Land Site Value Taxation, but I think they are much too timid to do anythng about it.
Fortunately, we now have a lot of Lib Dem MPs to keep making the point.
As long as we live in a free society, property will be an investment. People will pay a price that reflects what they expect to benefit in future, and the benefits are really good. You can only stop that dynamic by abolishing private property in housing or by introducing state control of where people are allowed to live.
"Jay Slater and our true-crime-poisoned culture The cruel online response to the 19-year-old’s disappearance shows how real people’s lives have become fodder for content. By Sarah Manavis"
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
Status changes can result in substantial support changes sometimes. See Starmer's net approval ratings once he took office as PM vs before he did.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
That asset financing costs are inversely correlated to asset prices isn't a good or a bad point. It's simply a fact.
Correlation is not causation.
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
It's both in this case. Look, if you won't allow yourself to take any insights from me please look up how property is valued from an investment perspective. It won't take you long to get the gist. You'll see that yields/rates are key.
Except it's not in this case.
Interest rates collapsed in 2007 and house prices to earnings ratios didn't rise, they actually began to fall from their peaks and took years to catch back up.
Supply and demand are the problem. Demand surged in 2002 onwards due to both demographics and migration, but supply did not keep up.
We can pick this up again when you've educated yourself on how yields impact property valuation. As I say, it won't take you long. Just give me a shout.
I'm educated on how it impacts it, its part of what I studied for my Masters.
I'm also educated enough to know that it doesn't dwarf supply and demand, hence why there was for years a positive relationship between interest rates and price/earning ratios rather than an inverse one.
You acting like its the be-all and end-all of the matter is just complete nonsense. That's where you're making the mistake, its a factor on supply and demand but only a factor.
Interesting that for 95% of American history, having an iota of Black "blood" in one's ancestry was enough to make you Black in the eyes of the law AND society.
Whereas today having WAY more than that just ain't enough for some people. For some reason?
Interesting that for 95% of American history, having an iota of Black "blood" in one's ancestry was enough to make you Black in the eyes of the law AND society.
Whereas today having WAY more than that just ain't enough for some people. For some reason?
My gut tends to agree, but the objective evidence is with @HYUFD atm.
Albeit the evidence is fairly thin. This is why Biden should have stood down as POTUS too. Give her time to become a known quantity.
I would not be placing a bet at these prices, I am short Trump and long Kamala though. I expect to be able to short him significantly more in the 1.45 region in the near future, although it would be nice if I'm wrong about that.
Note that NYT and other media are reporting, that key reason Biden decided to withdraw from the race, were his campaign's own polling in battleground states. Which reportedly convinced him that following his disastrous debate versus Trump, he was on track to lose to DJT in November.
Yes. Here’s my theory on Joe Biden’s ‘journey’, see what you think.
He did intend to be a one term president - a ‘bridge’ - but this changed when Donald Trump came back into play as the likely GOP nominee. Having beaten him once, he considered himself (correctly at that point) the safest bet to do so again. Conscious of the threat Trump posed to the US and the wider world Biden now felt duty bound to run for a second term.
As his health deteriorated, he got kind of locked in and the situation became self-fuelling. At some point the ‘management’ of his frailties became a deception, including of himself, and the ‘duty’ started to look more like prideful stubborness, fed by his close circle. At the eleventh hour he mustered the humility and wisdom to do the right (albeit belated) thing. He’d become the opponent Trump wanted rather than feared and he realized this. Although informed by health factors it was primarily a political not a medical decision.
Just wanted to acknowledge that you've consistently said it won't be Biden for nominee, and I consistently said you were wrong!
Jeezo, the already deranged have gone off the scale. They seem a little rattled.
That is truly remarkable
It would certainly be legally actionable in the UK.
This is also pretty poor.
More like fucking disgusting.
Interesting that for 95% of American history, having an iota of Black "blood" in one's ancestry was enough to make you Black in the eyes of the law AND society.
Whereas today having WAY more than that just ain't enough for some people. For some reason?
Interesting that for 95% of American history, having an iota of Black "blood" in one's ancestry was enough to make you Black in the eyes of the law AND society.
Whereas today having WAY more than that just ain't enough for some people. For some reason?
Nasty stuff, dishonest stuff, it happens in politics everywhere. And given the size of the USA, it's going to throw up more nasty dishonest people than elsewhere.
But the degree seen in US politics does seem odd and unhealthy to an outsider. And I would need persuading that it isn't mostly from one side.
Interesting that for 95% of American history, having an iota of Black "blood" in one's ancestry was enough to make you Black in the eyes of the law AND society.
Whereas today having WAY more than that just ain't enough for some people. For some reason?
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
Status changes can result in substantial support changes sometimes. See Starmer's net approval ratings once he took office as PM vs before he did.
Starmer had just been elected PM by the voters themselves, what an absurd comparison
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
Interesting that for 95% of American history, having an iota of Black "blood" in one's ancestry was enough to make you Black in the eyes of the law AND society.
Whereas today having WAY more than that just ain't enough for some people. For some reason?
Calling people horrible things might not need to be a crime, but that rather goes against the general trend of things thesedays, and it is pretty clear some people think it is perfectly acceptable that those they politically disagree with should be criticised in racial terms.
The On Point Politics/SoCal Research Keystone State poll was conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024 and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
I highly doubt opinions of Harris will have changed in 24 hrs there
You were highly doubting Buttigieg would endorse Harris this morning.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Jeezo, the already deranged have gone off the scale. They seem a little rattled.
Entirely seriously, I cannot conceive of hating a rival political party enough to support people quite so rude and offensive.
Manners are not everything, not even close when it comes to policy, but the vulgar, crass, insulting behaviour is just so disgraceful.
MAGA-GOP freakout over KH speaks volumes.
Similar but worse than the Keir Fear so prevalent among subset of PBers.
And this is what I dared to hope that trump and co don't have a strategy for dealing with a young black female, and go properly mad trying
Kamala Harris is 59.
So yes, young by the standards of this race.
Young by the standards of me
She actually looks reasonably attractive and natural rather than like a botox filled waxworks dummy with a superglue perm lime most senior female US politicians seem to resemble. That might help her too.
Comments
So the owner needs to pay the bills and taxes for the house but has no tenant paying them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWD3vwX9YYw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5PJIJ_rjR0
https://www.youtube.com/@theSpaceVixen
https://www.instagram.com/amyshirateitel/
House price to earning ration over the past quarter of a century is not linked to interest rates, except for the fact that interest rates fell after price/earning rates surged.
Supply and demand OTOH is causation.
@gretchenwhitmer
Today, not only am I fired up to endorse @KamalaHarris for President of the United States, I’m proud to serve as a co-chair of her campaign.
In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a candidate they can count on to lower their costs, protect their freedoms, and build an economy that works for working people. Donald Trump is a convicted felon who stokes violence, overturned Roe, and drove our economy into the ground. We cannot let him anywhere near the White House.
Vice President Harris, you have my full support. Let’s win this."
https://x.com/gretchenwhitmer/status/1815408498420707623
If there's sufficient construction of homes then competition exists just the same as competition exists for any other good.
Both are assets generating incomes for those who own them who want to sell them/let them, but only if consumers wish to do so - which if there's sufficient competition then consumers have other alternatives instead.
JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America
https://nitter.poast.org/RonFilipkowski/status/1815414018502504611#m
Turns out, yes. Entirely seriously, I cannot conceive of hating a rival political party enough to support people quite so rude and offensive.
Manners are not everything, not even close when it comes to policy, but the vulgar, crass, insulting behaviour is just so disgraceful.
He did intend to be a one term president - a ‘bridge’ - but this changed when Donald Trump came back into play as the likely GOP nominee. Having beaten him once, he considered himself (correctly at that point) the safest bet to do so again. Conscious of the threat Trump posed to the US and the wider world Biden now felt duty bound to run for a second term.
As his health deteriorated, he got kind of locked in and the situation became self-fuelling. At some point the ‘management’ of his frailties became a deception, including of himself, and the ‘duty’ started to look more like prideful stubborness, fed by his close circle. At the eleventh hour he mustered the humility and wisdom to do the right (albeit belated) thing. He’d become the opponent Trump wanted rather than feared and he realized this. Although informed by health factors it was primarily a political not a medical decision.
*Browes titanium gravel bikes at 42% off*
Similar but worse than the Keir Fear so prevalent among subset of PBers.
The "why don't we build, build, build?" brigade clearly don't understand what's really going on in housing. Putting spades in the ground isn't the problem - putting keys in the front doors is.
The absurdity of having so much empty newbuild at a time when we are told demand is unprecedented is the absurdity of market driven economics.
The machete attack carried out by teenager Jay Slater and others in 2021 could have been fatal, but for the heroic intervention of a young girl who threw herself onto the victim's body to save him.
Her bravery was hailed by the judge at the trial of Jay and seven others, who brutally attacked him with machetes, an axe and a golf club.
Judge Philip Parry commended the 15-year-old girl's courage, saying: 'This was an act that undoubtedly prevented him from being more seriously injured or killed.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13576425/inside-gang-attach-machete-jay-slater-spared-jail-brutal-beating-skull-exposed.html
The proportion of empty houses is exceptionally low still. It should be much, much higher. For that we need to build millions more homes.
There isn't a single county in the entire frigging country with enough empty homes.
It would be like the confused juvenile lion getting smacked over the head by hundreds of zebra.
Part of this is the rise in the number of second homes and one of the questions might be what carrot or what stick (if any) could you offer to bring some of those houses onto the open market?
Interest rates collapsed in 2007 and house prices to earnings ratios didn't rise, they actually began to fall from their peaks and took years to catch back up.
Supply and demand are the problem. Demand surged in 2002 onwards due to both demographics and migration, but supply did not keep up.
Am personally waiting for Trafalgar to report their "findings" . . .
Harris 46% Trump 50%
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BTopd55Mr-uiOfZ_0booFKcstbNry-Ku/view
Ostensible civility can still be a cover for some extreme rudeness, but some people even here see baseline respect for an opponent as bad. Thankfully a small number.
"A man who had his “skull split open” in a machete attack carried out by a gang including Jay Slater has broken his silence on the desperate search for the teenager who vanished in Tenerife.
The missing 19-year-old was part of a group of eight people who attacked Tom Hilton, then 17, with a machete, golf clubs and an axe in Rishton, Lancashire, in 2021.
The apprentice bricklayer, from Oswaldtwistle, was handed an 18-month community order with 25 days of rehabilitation activities and 150 hours of unpaid work for his role in the violent disorder."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jay-slater-machete-attack-victim-tiktok-trolls-b2569680.html
Allegedly:
He was involved in drug dealing and the thievery of high-end watches on Tenerife, which is why he was at a remote house of two men he had only just met.
We should have four million plus empty dwellings.
10% of dwellings being empty is a healthy ratio, there isn't a single county in the entire country with that many.
conducted online using the Pollfish panel starting on July 20, 2024
and finishing on the 21st.
Pre-departure
So yes, young by the standards of this race.
"What can I get angry about next?"
The answer, imho, is to tax land for all it is worth, whether it has been built on or not. Once we, the people through the planning authorities, have identified a piece of land as appropriate for development, we ought to tax it as thought it had been developed. That would end the nonsense about developers just sitting on lan without building when they already have been granted permission, and in passing, "investors" who just buy up property and leave it empty while theyr wait for its value to rise. A lot of them forgeigners, criminals and tax dodgers, of course.
Labour, at one stage, was considering Land Site Value Taxation, but I think they are much too timid to do anythng about it.
Fortunately, we now have a lot of Lib Dem MPs to keep making the point.
https://x.com/mcelderrytruth/status/1815002899920884008?s=61
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/transcoded/3/3f/DeanScream.ogg/DeanScream.ogg.mp3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean
(which is why I am chickening out of repeating the link)
I listened to the speech again over the weekend, and honestly couldn't understand what the fuss was about.
https://x.com/lavern_spicer/status/1815312759552090434?s=61
I'm also educated enough to know that it doesn't dwarf supply and demand, hence why there was for years a positive relationship between interest rates and price/earning ratios rather than an inverse one.
You acting like its the be-all and end-all of the matter is just complete nonsense. That's where you're making the mistake, its a factor on supply and demand but only a factor.
Interesting that for 95% of American history, having an iota of Black "blood" in one's ancestry was enough to make you Black in the eyes of the law AND society.
Whereas today having WAY more than that just ain't enough for some people. For some reason?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
One for @HYUFD
https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1551984522685829120?s=61
Nasty stuff, dishonest stuff, it happens in politics everywhere. And given the size of the USA, it's going to throw up more nasty dishonest people than elsewhere.
But the degree seen in US politics does seem odd and unhealthy to an outsider. And I would need persuading that it isn't mostly from one side.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/21/uk-police-charge-pro-palestine-protester-behind-divisive-coconut-placard
She seems to have a very good relationship with them as well as their biological mum.
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a27422434/kamala-harris-stepmom-mothers-day/
Or do only biological children count in your blood and soil world?
And that's something only racists do.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19vb2NtgByJ5MtJkCBHbuI3zUKOB_71iw/view
I long since lost the battle of having PMs younger than me.
Do we need to defer to TSE's expertise in this field?