Housing - the silent crisis?

[CrisisTime]

The shocking state of housing in this country for anyone who didn't get on the gravy train in earlier decades, that is.

The homelessness. The sheer costs of housing. The tiny rooms and tiny houses. Storage rooms converted to miniscule 'bedrooms'. The dirt and dilapidation of so many rentals. Increasingly greedy landlords and letting agents. A cool house-share like The Young Ones would never exist now. The gentle landlord I once had (a vicar's wife) and her relaxed tenants - is no more. Just the sheer lack of decent affordable housing for so many.

300,000 more people coming to UK every year as well, which makes bad matters even worse, if they could be worse that is.

Is any politician from any party ever going to do anything on this issue? All I ever heard is daft initiatives that are a drop in the ocean.

I have no problem with our planned development. They are including a school, Drs, regular buses, three access roads and a park. It will improve the land. We have plenty of other open space that's a lot more attractive. I really would like the govt to override in this case.

It's desperate really. There is nothing under £300k to buy and virtually nothing to rent. Yet we have some big employers here, who employ thousands of staff.

Housing bubble needs to deflate, but it can't without causing massive problems

It is a huge problem and the best solution is to build more housing. Planning rules are crazy and greenbelt rules need to be looked at. A starter family home (3 or 4 bed) in the village I grew up starts at £250k. Average wages are £20-30k a year for a good job. Families can't afford the area. Meanwhile there are small plots of land which sit there idle because they are greenbelt and the rules don't allow it to be built on. There are school places available, transportation links etc. The situation is nuts.

How could companies be encouraged to move away form London?

They all want to huddle together for convenience, London addresses and phone numbers carry more weight, they are already there and it would cost loads to move.

Labour did it in the late 90s/ early 00s- huge investment and incentives for businesses to move to the north. It worked. Admitidly, it moved the housing crisis so some areas i.e. Manchester then became unaffordable to locals but it can be done. You just need investment

insta I didn't know that they did that.
The other point I always think about the move north thing, if a load of Londoners moved to the places where 18-20 year olds can still buy houses on their average-ish jobs, pretty soon the locals will get fucked off because house prices will go in and the people that grew up there will be pushed out.

we'd go into substantial debt trying to get that infrastructure built.

Alternatively, it would grow the economy cf. Roosevelts "New Deal" in the US depression.

Lurking It wouldn't necessarily though. The situation now is vastly different to what it was in the 30s and 40s. If growing debt in order to build infrastructure was deemed to be a good economic decision, it would be happening in spades at the moment. But it can't be justified.

Yep that's what happened in Manchester older. Lots of new executive flats built for the grads and young execs moving north and locals got more and more priced out.

I'm not really sure you need debt. What you need is incentives, so you need cash. Go back to the old grant system whereby the government lent cash to house builders who repaid it when the units were sold

There aren't many places left where 18-20 year olds can buy houses on their average wages anyway, though. Especially not when you're trying to pull a deposit together when renting. We do really need to broaden some of the jobs/money so it isn't all so concentrated in SE England, but it's going to take more than that to fix housing.

Lurking It wouldn't necessarily though. The situation now is vastly different to what it was in the 30s and 40s. If growing debt in order to build infrastructure was deemed to be a good economic decision, it would be happening in spades at the moment. But it can't be justified

I don't think taking a view that "if that was good it would be happening" is helpful in this case.

The bottom line is we need more houses (or way less people). Not mortgage deals. Not tax breaks. More houses.

Supplementary question. How much would you be prepared to lose of the value of your house, in order to alleviate the housing crisis ? 10% ? 20% ? Since the economic effect of more houses is to reduce the overall value of housing (the more there is of something, the cheaper is becomes).

53rd it's the thing that someone always trots out in a housing thread:
"my DS/DD has just just bought a 3 bed house and they are 19 working in admin, therefore there is no housing problem"

It used to be government policy, regional development. Incentives were given for businesses to relocate.

I don't know if I dreamed it, but I think I heard house prices were going up in the Midlands now. It's the obvious place for people like us (SE) to relocate to. Even with a small house on the outskirts, the equity you build here over 15 years is enough to buy a nice house outright there. We have seriously considered it over the past two years.

For many the problems come when you hit 50. If you get made redundant it's almost impossible to get permanent work that pays enough to cover costs. There is a lot of hidden unemployment I think. I know many people in that situation who are registered as self-employed but earning very little. They can't remortgage and they can't downsize. They can't rent to reduce outgoings. I think it's likely therefore that there will be a sweep of people moving north. Buying houses outright and living off benefits. Time will tell.

Dem bloody ferriners.
So what do you propose?

How much would you be prepared to lose of the value of your house, in order to alleviate the housing crisis ? 10% ? 20% ?
If housing is to be affordable those who own will have to take a hit
No one wants to take a hit

Housing in the south East probably needs to take a 50 percent hit
Imagine that!
If it did I would up size pdq, I have a small place with no mortgage and enough in the bank to buy a bigger place
But if you have a big place with a big mortgage
Ouch🤐

I worked this out for another thread a while ago but there are (2015 figures) 23.5million dwellings in England and 54.8 million people.

Those figures include single occupancy studios and mansions and children and babies who obviously live with at least one adult.

In theory there is 0.4 of a dwelling for each person. Taking in to account children, I think there should be enough places for people to live... whether there are jobs and the desire to live in some parts is another thing.

I don't think there are too many people just to many in certain areas.

Yep the other issue peace is people who can't afford the house they want/ need because of deposits, so they buy cheaper then remortgage at 2 year intervals for extensions/ home improvements. Everyone I know does this and it relies on the value of the house and therefore this LTv increasing year on year

Housing in the south East probably needs to take a 50 percent hit

how would that help exactly? People going into negative equity will stay put as they won't have the money to relocate. The value of your home is only relevant if you intend to move.

Investors (small and big) will jump on cheaper homes. Rents would go up. Did you really notice many more properties on the market during the last "crash"? I didn't.

I live in the NW and 18-20 year olds can't afford to buy houses here

I'm 23 and a couple of people from my year at school have managed to buy recently and that's it.

how would that help exactly?
Obviously I wasnt offering it as a solution so me rephrase for you
Housing in the south East probably needs to take a 50 percent hit in order to be affordable, this will cause many other problems, like I said, no one wants to take a hit
A massively over inflated bubble is a big problem with multiple causes and no straightforward solution

strik what about is they could move with their negative equity (I don't know how it would work) if other houses went down by a similar amount it wouldn't matter much would it.

You'd still owe the bank the same amount whether you moved to not, though I suppose you couldn't move somewhere worth less that the current house.

I own my home and don't mind if my house devalues if it meant the housing crisis would improve. Its horrendous and so bloody unfair

Can anyone explain this to me: if house prices went down in value by 10% ....so everyones house value fell by 10% .....I honestly don't see why it would be a problem as its only "theoretical" money anyway ...I personally have about 50k "equity" BUT that's not money in the bank.... I will only benefit from that money if I choose to buy a more expensive house?? And if I do, the more expensive house will be 10% cheaper anyway so whats the problem

I am clearly not an economist so happy to be proved wrong

Tbf I don't think 18-23 year olds, particularly single ones, have never been able to buy a property in any dcent numbers.

Expectations play a role- on a local FB group I see this age group up
In arms because they can't buy a house (or sadly privately rent, although they don't want to anyway) we're talking about young people working in shops, as hairdressers or beauticians. They're single. and i just wonder, why do they think there was ever a time when people in their situation could buy?