Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Are we heading into a major recession?

430 replies

bodychanges · 12/02/2025 13:16

Things are already tough in my industry - I’m a contractor and this past year is my worst in over two decades - but should I be expecting things to get worse not better?

and I sound stupid, but what are the main economic indicators?

OP posts:
ARealitycheck · 13/02/2025 02:23

juggleit · 13/02/2025 02:15

@WhitegreeNcandle
we are currently recruiting for well paid manual jobs with career progression. The time wasters are staggering- it’s very apparent they come for interviews to fulfil their obligations to look for work. They know exactly what to say to not get selected. I will be contacting my local Job centre to put forward my ideas to stop this pathetic behaviour. Employers need to feed back to the Job centres so their clients can be sanctioned.
if we cannot recruit for these jobs then that obviously leads to less growth- recession is looming.

What also needs to happen is a seismic shift in what we consider higher paid jobs. We have a lack of workers in a number of manual positions, hospitality and care industry especially. Paying just above minimum wage doesn't cut it in comparison to role demands.

Perhaps we all must accept that cleaning and caring for elderly people or dealing with the public in service situations etc must be higher paid, in comparison to more office based jobs which can often be semi automated with modern technology.

juggleit · 13/02/2025 02:15

@WhitegreeNcandle
we are currently recruiting for well paid manual jobs with career progression. The time wasters are staggering- it’s very apparent they come for interviews to fulfil their obligations to look for work. They know exactly what to say to not get selected. I will be contacting my local Job centre to put forward my ideas to stop this pathetic behaviour. Employers need to feed back to the Job centres so their clients can be sanctioned.
if we cannot recruit for these jobs then that obviously leads to less growth- recession is looming.

ARealitycheck · 13/02/2025 01:56

neverthelastone · 13/02/2025 01:39

Yes, exactly — this is what should happen. (Though the bank’s confidence in lending isn’t just about your ability to pay it back but about their own confidence in the direction of interest rate and the credit markets: the financial crash was caused amongst other things by the fact that the banks no longer cared if you could pay it back because they thought they could defray the risk with credit securitisation.)

Once a market starts falling banks tighten credit. “Pent-up demand” only happens if banks suddenly loosen credit again. If they don’t, it doesn’t matter how much you want to buy if you can’t get a mortgage. In purely numerical terms, building more affordable houses will just accelerate the price falls that will happen anyway, because the housing crisis is essentially not one of not enough houses, but one in which some people “over-consume” housing at the expense of others. Think of Auntie Mildred who’s rattling around in her five-bedroom house whilst the young family down the street live in a two-bed flat.

Now ideally we would solve the housing overvaluation issue with sensible policies, as you suggest above. But are those actually going to happen? You’d require government backing to offset the risks enough for the banks. And voters will all vote against because they don’t like the idea of their house prices falling no matter how economically sensible it might be!

Edited

You are correct people will vote for those most likely to protect their wealth. But as we are seeing, the haves are becoming a smaller and smaller group, with the have nots getting larger. At some point hopefully those without will vote in a government for their needs.

But looking at it from a banks point of view.
I borrow £120k over 25 years for a mortgage on an affordable home but at a high rate of 10%. I pay back in interest above my purchase price just over £200k. The bank knows that is managable and likely to be paid back. Monthly repayment £1090.
Or
I borrow at todays prices £320k over 25 years but at 5%, What I pay back above the initial price is £241k. But the bank knows I am stretching myself and if something goes wrong I may default. Monthly repayment £1870.

I'm using a £30k deposit in both calculations.

If you were looking at that purely as a risk v return point of view. I'd imagine most would choose the first.

So again the only people gaining any great benefit are those sitting on multiple properties, valued way over what they are truly worth.

neverthelastone · 13/02/2025 01:39

ARealitycheck · 13/02/2025 01:26

The banks confidence in lending is based on your ability to pay it back.

Using the Aunt Mabel scenario above. If there is sufficient local housing for people in Bristol due to increased building of affordable homes. Rents and mortgages become affordable in comparison to earnings.

Instead of Mabels house being worth a ridiculous £350k, and prospective buyers needing £100k deposit and massive monthly payments to keep up. The house becomes worth eg £150k which is much more affordable. Both in terms of deposit and repayment.

The only people with a vested interest in keeping property artificially high compared to earnings are current property owners.

Edited

Yes, exactly — this is what should happen. (Though the bank’s confidence in lending isn’t just about your ability to pay it back but about their own confidence in the direction of interest rate and the credit markets: the financial crash was caused amongst other things by the fact that the banks no longer cared if you could pay it back because they thought they could defray the risk with credit securitisation.)

Once a market starts falling banks tighten credit. “Pent-up demand” only happens if banks suddenly loosen credit again. If they don’t, it doesn’t matter how much you want to buy if you can’t get a mortgage. In purely numerical terms, building more affordable houses will just accelerate the price falls that will happen anyway, because the housing crisis is essentially not one of not enough houses, but one in which some people “over-consume” housing at the expense of others. Think of Auntie Mildred who’s rattling around in her five-bedroom house whilst the young family down the street live in a two-bed flat.

Now ideally we would solve the housing overvaluation issue with sensible policies, as you suggest above. But are those actually going to happen? You’d require government backing to offset the risks enough for the banks. And voters will all vote against because they don’t like the idea of their house prices falling no matter how economically sensible it might be!

juggleit · 13/02/2025 01:28

wipeywipe · 12/02/2025 16:08

What do posters think any party can do to fix it? How do you fix the productivity issue? the implications of an ageing population? wage stagnation? a distorted housing market? services starved of investment?

Reduce corporation tax - see Ireland GDP.
The UK has very hostile policies towards business.
They delivered the budget back to front. Growth first always.
The current government are products of the Whitehall bureaucratic machine and have zero idea of how to make money through private investment.

ARealitycheck · 13/02/2025 01:26

neverthelastone · 13/02/2025 01:17

Housing like anything else is all about supply and demand.

@ARealitycheck Except people mistakenly think “demand” means “people who would like to buy”. In the housing market, demand is actually a function of the credit available. I might want to buy a house, but if interest rates are too high for banks to lend me a mortgage on my income, I’m not “demand”; I’m irrelevant.

Demand in housing means number of people who are able and willing to buy at the current price. In an economic downturn, “demand” falls. Where is the economic confidence at the moment which would keep prices up? Can you see it returning in the next 5-10 years?

The banks confidence in lending is based on your ability to pay it back.

Using the Aunt Mabel scenario above. If there is sufficient local housing for people in Bristol due to increased building of affordable homes. Rents and mortgages become affordable in comparison to earnings.

Instead of Mabels house being worth a ridiculous £350k, and prospective buyers needing £100k deposit and massive monthly payments to keep up. The house becomes worth eg £150k which is much more affordable. Both in terms of deposit and repayment.

The only people with a vested interest in keeping property artificially high compared to earnings are current property owners.

neverthelastone · 13/02/2025 01:17

Housing like anything else is all about supply and demand.

@ARealitycheck Except people mistakenly think “demand” means “people who would like to buy”. In the housing market, demand is actually a function of the credit available. I might want to buy a house, but if interest rates are too high for banks to lend me a mortgage on my income, I’m not “demand”; I’m irrelevant.

Demand in housing means number of people who are able and willing to buy at the current price. In an economic downturn, “demand” falls. Where is the economic confidence at the moment which would keep prices up? Can you see it returning in the next 5-10 years?

suburberphobe · 13/02/2025 01:02

rejoin the EU

Ready to join the Euro?

You got your special deal to keep the British pound at the last talks sometime in the mists of history.....

ARealitycheck · 13/02/2025 01:01

neverthelastone · 13/02/2025 00:52

You say that: but, think about it a little more…

WHO is going to buy the properties to release the inheritance? You’re assuming there is some third category of people who are going to pony up the cash at current values so that it can be released. Who are those people?

So far, when the older generation has been liquidating property to give inheritances to their children, much of it has been bought by landlords (often themselves of the older generation — 1 in 6 boomers are landlords). ONS statistics show that most of the property market has been sustained in the last few years by over-55s essentially trading properties amongst themselves. A lot of the bottom rungs of the market — the properties that first or second time buyers have traditionally bought — is now private rental stock.

When more and more need to sell, who buys the properties at the inflated values so that the inheritances can be released? You need a market to sell to: landlords, investors, immigrants, young people. For this you need economic confidence: low interest rates, a booming economy, expectation that property values will rise, good jobs on offer with good wages and a decent level of disposable income.

What happens to property in a time of recession or economic under confidence? And once more and more over-60s — who, remember, outnumber the younger generations — start dying or going into care homes, and put more and more properties on the market — what happens to them in an economic downturn? Well, Barbara who wants to downsize but can’t find a buyer doesn’t want to drop the price, so she puts it off a bit longer. After all, she wants to preserve the kids’ inheritance. But Ethel next door needs to go into a care home, so Ethel’s son has to drop his price to sell the house to afford it because there aren’t any of the cheaper state care home places available in their area.

Suddenly, prices on that street are now lower. But there still aren’t many buyers around, and eventually Barbara’s kids want her to sell up to buy herself that new hip privately. She’s got three children, though, so once she’s downsized, splitting the profit between three of them isn’t as much as they thought. Interest rates are higher, the cost of childcare has rocketed, and taxes have gone up, so even with the extra inheritance Barbara’s kids can’t afford to trade up to a new house; and they can’t find a buyer for theirs either, because there are no first time buyers at the bottom of the market. More and more older people need to sell to help fund their care, and they are competing for the precious few buyers who can afford to buy in a downturn when interest rates are high, credit is tight and workers are worried about their jobs.

In the meantime, Nigel Farage has become PM; immigration has collapsed, and he’s put half the universities out of business, to the cheers of his target voters and the Daily Mail, who have been chanting “no more Mickey Mouse degrees!” Only, now all the market for student rental flats and HMOs for immigrant workers has collapsed too, so rents are plummeting. More older people start to panic and put their houses on the market, but that just makes the situation worse, because more recent buyers in the market start to be hamstrung by negative equity, whereas boomers own outright, so they can drop their prices lower and are more desperate to sell (or their kids need to sell, so they’ll accept a lower inheritance in order to have their parents’ houses off their hands). Old people do keep dying, after all, and leaving their houses behind, even if there aren’t enough buyers who can afford them. And there you have a classic market crash. The engines that powered property speculation on the way up go into reverse. Why buy when the market’s falling?

If you think my narrative above is too fictional, consider this: since there are fewer people in the lower generations than the older population, who IS going to buy the houses to release the inheritances? That’s the same people who want the inheritances. But there aren’t as many of them as there are houses to sell. (If you think it’s just going to trickle down a property “ladder”, unfortunately the ladder broke some time ago, and landlords replaced lots of the buyers on the middle and lower rungs. Only, the landlords are the same older people who’ll also be selling up their other houses, too…)

Immigration was actually what governments hoped would plug this gap. Ironically, the voters who this would actually benefit actually vote against it, rushing to economic disaster like turkeys to a Christmas market.

Ditto re Brexit. If the idiots vote in Reform, that’s like getting Trump 2.0. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!

Edited

Housing like anything else is all about supply and demand. Build sufficient housing, preferably returning to council housing rather than housing association with rents proportionate to the tenants wages.

It is well documented how places like London or Bristol in particular are unaffordable to many. How private rents far outstrip wages.

Instead of poor Aunty Mabel getting £2k a month for letting out her family home in Bristol while she lives in a single bed in Margate and making money for the family pot every month, Have plenty local social housing and have her getting £600 a month or sell the thing to the people who live and work there.

neverthelastone · 13/02/2025 00:52

MidnightMeltdown · 12/02/2025 23:38

The country is just not going to be able to generate enough wealth to sustain prices at these levels. In the long run it will collapse: there are only two ways of doing this — price collapses or huge amounts of wage and general inflation.

@neverthelastone I think what you're missing from this equation is inheritance. Wealth doesn't die with the older generation. We are about to witness the biggest wealth transfer in history.

Wealth isn't gained from work these days, it's gained from inheritance and/or bank of mum and dad. If people weren't able to transfer wealth from one generation to the next, then house prices would have collapsed years ago. As it is, I don't see this happening. What we will see instead is increased inequality.

You say that: but, think about it a little more…

WHO is going to buy the properties to release the inheritance? You’re assuming there is some third category of people who are going to pony up the cash at current values so that it can be released. Who are those people?

So far, when the older generation has been liquidating property to give inheritances to their children, much of it has been bought by landlords (often themselves of the older generation — 1 in 6 boomers are landlords). ONS statistics show that most of the property market has been sustained in the last few years by over-55s essentially trading properties amongst themselves. A lot of the bottom rungs of the market — the properties that first or second time buyers have traditionally bought — is now private rental stock.

When more and more need to sell, who buys the properties at the inflated values so that the inheritances can be released? You need a market to sell to: landlords, investors, immigrants, young people. For this you need economic confidence: low interest rates, a booming economy, expectation that property values will rise, good jobs on offer with good wages and a decent level of disposable income.

What happens to property in a time of recession or economic under confidence? And once more and more over-60s — who, remember, outnumber the younger generations — start dying or going into care homes, and put more and more properties on the market — what happens to them in an economic downturn? Well, Barbara who wants to downsize but can’t find a buyer doesn’t want to drop the price, so she puts it off a bit longer. After all, she wants to preserve the kids’ inheritance. But Ethel next door needs to go into a care home, so Ethel’s son has to drop his price to sell the house to afford it because there aren’t any of the cheaper state care home places available in their area.

Suddenly, prices on that street are now lower. But there still aren’t many buyers around, and eventually Barbara’s kids want her to sell up to buy herself that new hip privately. She’s got three children, though, so once she’s downsized, splitting the profit between three of them isn’t as much as they thought. Interest rates are higher, the cost of childcare has rocketed, and taxes have gone up, so even with the extra inheritance Barbara’s kids can’t afford to trade up to a new house; and they can’t find a buyer for theirs either, because there are no first time buyers at the bottom of the market. More and more older people need to sell to help fund their care, and they are competing for the precious few buyers who can afford to buy in a downturn when interest rates are high, credit is tight and workers are worried about their jobs.

In the meantime, Nigel Farage has become PM; immigration has collapsed, and he’s put half the universities out of business, to the cheers of his target voters and the Daily Mail, who have been chanting “no more Mickey Mouse degrees!” Only, now all the market for student rental flats and HMOs for immigrant workers has collapsed too, so rents are plummeting. More older people start to panic and put their houses on the market, but that just makes the situation worse, because more recent buyers in the market start to be hamstrung by negative equity, whereas boomers own outright, so they can drop their prices lower and are more desperate to sell (or their kids need to sell, so they’ll accept a lower inheritance in order to have their parents’ houses off their hands). Old people do keep dying, after all, and leaving their houses behind, even if there aren’t enough buyers who can afford them. And there you have a classic market crash. The engines that powered property speculation on the way up go into reverse. Why buy when the market’s falling?

If you think my narrative above is too fictional, consider this: since there are fewer people in the lower generations than the older population, who IS going to buy the houses to release the inheritances? That’s the same people who want the inheritances. But there aren’t as many of them as there are houses to sell. (If you think it’s just going to trickle down a property “ladder”, unfortunately the ladder broke some time ago, and landlords replaced lots of the buyers on the middle and lower rungs. Only, the landlords are the same older people who’ll also be selling up their other houses, too…)

Immigration was actually what governments hoped would plug this gap. Ironically, the voters who this would actually benefit actually vote against it, rushing to economic disaster like turkeys to a Christmas market.

Ditto re Brexit. If the idiots vote in Reform, that’s like getting Trump 2.0. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!

ARealitycheck · 13/02/2025 00:44

BluLagoon · 12/02/2025 13:42

Huge amount of money printed - and then wasted - over Covid. But really it goes back to 2008 and the poor wage growth we’ve suffered since then. As a country we need to go back to what we’re good at like engineering, and then capitalise on it.

Nail hit squarely on the head. Covid was disasterous for the economy, and none of our leading parties worked together, rather spent time breaking their own rules and filling pockets.

Free movement of people within Europe did keep wage growth down in the UK. Had our leaders listened 20 ish years ago when allowing free movement from Eastern Europe was already a concern to the working Brit. I suspect we would be in a far better financial position today.

Likewise had Europe remained a trading bloc as it was designed, we would likely have remained members. It was the creeping removal of our ability to do what was right for us foremost that caused brexit.

Tryingtokeepgoing · 13/02/2025 00:34

wipeywipe · 12/02/2025 15:25

@TheNuthatch I never claimed it had improved. I just said Tories didn't do a good job.

And Labour have made it a whole heap worse…doing nothing would have been better than systematically destroying what little growth there was

MidnightMeltdown · 12/02/2025 23:38

The country is just not going to be able to generate enough wealth to sustain prices at these levels. In the long run it will collapse: there are only two ways of doing this — price collapses or huge amounts of wage and general inflation.

@neverthelastone I think what you're missing from this equation is inheritance. Wealth doesn't die with the older generation. We are about to witness the biggest wealth transfer in history.

Wealth isn't gained from work these days, it's gained from inheritance and/or bank of mum and dad. If people weren't able to transfer wealth from one generation to the next, then house prices would have collapsed years ago. As it is, I don't see this happening. What we will see instead is increased inequality.

TizerorFizz · 12/02/2025 23:37

When the private market is bouyant with loads of properties available, rents are more stable @neverthelastone . I completely understand the housing market. Try looking at supply and demand. It’s not the role of private landlords to supply housing to the extent they do. They are pulling out. The state took a back seat. Why is that the fault of landlords who stepped in? Would you rather no housing? We have the system we have. Get the state building and renters would get choice snd lower rents. Create a shortage and debts go up.

MellersSmellers · 12/02/2025 23:20

@Dorisbonson You don't know what you're talking about on energy.
Wind power is much cheaper to generate than gas or nuclear, but in the uk the price is pegged to the price of gas so we don't feel it. And gas prices are high due to the Ukraine war.
I regularly check and the amount of electricity imports (I.e. cable from France) is no more than 10%. At this very moment it is 6%.

neverthelastone · 12/02/2025 23:16

TizerorFizz · 12/02/2025 20:15

@bodychanges There are jobs! We recruit foreign people into them. We do need to get the people in this country apready into the jobs. Angela Rayner will be amending employment legislation soon. So fewer jobs.

As for the earlier suggestion of much higher taxes on private landlords? That has to be one of the most stupid suggestions - it’s such a good idea for them to sell up and pull out. What would that do to rental prices? It’s financially illiterate like RR.

I don’t think you understand the housing market. One of the reasons why house prices are so massively overvalued and rents are high is the proportion of the market that has been bought out by landlords who have more advantageous credit than young workers. Forcing landlords out of the market is a good thing: we need housing to cost less and house prices to drop. A big percentage of younger workers subsidising other people’s priority investments is a misallocation of resources.

It’s s simple fact that housing is massively overvalued relative to our economic fundamentals. The country is just not going to be able to generate enough wealth to sustain prices at these levels. In the long run it will collapse: there are only two ways of doing this — price collapses or huge amounts of wage and general inflation. There is not much prospect of huge wage inflation on the horizon; and massive general inflation would be even more disastrous.

Housing returning to a reasonable level is necessary for genuine productivity to happen. Asset price inflation is not productivity; people have pretended it is for 25 years, but it isn’t. Our actual economic productivity stagnated at the end of the last century. And we actually have pretty low rates of unemployment (including youth employment). Housing is the real issue: wages are too low for living costs. Why do posters on these threads expect some magic young workers to appear and work their socks off when they can’t even afford a place to live?

It’s a pure fantasy to buy into the right-wing nonsense that British people “don’t want to work”. We have very low youth unemployment compared to lots of comparable economies (look at rates of youth unemployment in the Eurozone, for example). There just aren’t as many workers in that demographic as there were in previous cohorts. The days of the postwar, where the economy had lots of young people getting into the job market, have gone. As @wipeywipe says above, there simply aren’t enough workers at the bottom of the generational pyramid to support the more numerous bulge of the over-55s above.

BanditTheCat · 12/02/2025 23:15

Gosh this post and some of the comments is another one that just smacks of opposition party tactics

how many more of these are we going to see?

BanditTheCat · 12/02/2025 23:14

Devon24 · 12/02/2025 13:56

Yes we have a predictable Labour shit show.
They have no idea whatsoever how to create growth.

By then we will be swamped due to no border control and the NHS will collapse due to the pressure. Housing crisis etc.

We were shouted down on here when we tried to warn people, I really wish I had been pleasantly surprised, but sadly not.

People voted for hope and now they have realised that the only way we are ever going to get out of this mess is to suspend all immigration for 5 years - ensure everyone has a home and a job. Fire up the economy and cut the benefits bill in half by making healthy people work for longer. Before we lose all of the companies and professionals creating wealth because it’s unbearable to live here.

It is ridiculous that people are still blaming truss, typical Labour deflection. Reeves is ruining our credit rating as we speak and driving the economy into a doom
cycle. I am holding them fully accountable.

Edited

Funnily enough inflation went down recently, and the UK was forecast to be the fasting growing economy in Europe. But don’t let these facts get in the way

Goldenbear · 12/02/2025 22:44

Lambington · 12/02/2025 21:52

Our sector (construction related) is booming. Can't hire enough people.

Yes, my DH is at a senior level in Architecture and says the same.

neverthelastone · 12/02/2025 22:38

Papyrophile · 12/02/2025 16:35

@wipeywipe do you want age-related tax bands? If I need care in my dotage, I expect to self-fund via the sale of the marital home. If I live a long time in care, there won't be much left over for HMRC to take in IHT. But if I spend the savings I have worked to accumulate on frivolity then the tax payer will have to fund my care.

If you had a look at a state-funded care home you would definitely not want the state to fund your care. (Hint: it doesn’t fund the nice ones; so if you fancy spending the end of your life in a 3m x 3m room with peeling brown carpet and a strong smell of cabbage and wee, you go, girl!)

Feelingathomenow · 12/02/2025 22:06

wherearemypastnames · 12/02/2025 21:55

We are heading for recession or difficult times as we have had years of underinvesting and the stupid trickle down economic models favoured by the right , the crazy brexit , and then add onto that background legacy very large global issues - war , protectionism, climate change

I doubt there is any economist who could sort this quickly if at all

You could give Labour an infinite amount of time and they wouldn’t be able to so much as successfully run a primary school cake sale.

wherearemypastnames · 12/02/2025 21:55

We are heading for recession or difficult times as we have had years of underinvesting and the stupid trickle down economic models favoured by the right , the crazy brexit , and then add onto that background legacy very large global issues - war , protectionism, climate change

I doubt there is any economist who could sort this quickly if at all

Lambington · 12/02/2025 21:52

Our sector (construction related) is booming. Can't hire enough people.

TheNuthatch · 12/02/2025 21:51

MichaelandKirk · 12/02/2025 21:43

So there is literally no one in Labour that has any experience to run the economy. Fgs! Maybe they could learn on the job though?

What a shit show…

Yup
They're all bloody ex lawyers, except Rayner of course but I dont fancy her in the treasury. We are up shit creek with no paddle.

GDP figures tomorrow, buckle up!

TizerorFizz · 12/02/2025 21:51

Labour have few politicians who have experience of anything. Look at the idiots in the WhatsApp group. One is an MP at 29 now and was 24 when exchanging messages. He has never had a proper job. We have hundreds of MPs who are not good enough. They get in by having a political conviction but they don’t have the talent to lead or even make coherent legislation. Thats why Labour have arrived and they have been slow to do anything meaningful. They have implemented their “get the rich” spiteful policies and very little else. No party puts the country above politics. W

Swipe left for the next trending thread