Are we heading into a major recession?

[bodychanges]

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?

We need more social housing. Not housing to buy. The housing estates being built are still unaffordable.

I saw a really interesting documenty of an investor in Scotland building housing for lifetime tenants. Flats, but only 3 stories up. The premise being you could get a tenancy if you had a full time job.
Get people into work and house them. Seems like a win win.

But social housing means depriving private landlords of their income. And as we know that is fundamentally against everything holy.

@SerendipityJane Lots of landlords have sold up. It’s all well and good not wanting private landlords, but for millions they are the only solution as social housing is a dream. So puss them off even more and have fewer places to rent. Simple economics tells you what will happen then.

Cheaper houses.

Growth stalled and the private sector started decreasing with job losses due to those policies

@EasternStandard todays news would suggest you are incorrect.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jg4enkr3lo

To be fair, 0.1% for three months (which will inevitably be revised down next quarter) is, at best, anaemic growth. The prediction of job losses across is real, and has been in the news, already impacting retail and hospitality. And the actual impact of anti growth policies hasn't even started to bite yet. Let's see what the OBRs assesment (which has already been cut in half) is for growth in it's March release.

On the plus side, interest rates were down a bit :)

Even more people competing for even fewer jobs.

There is currently a labour shortage in a whole load of industries. Unemployment is at 4.4%. An economy is considered to be in "full employment" at between 4 and 5%. There are 812,000 job vacancies in the U.K.

Here you go @BoredZelda

www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/articles/private-sector-expects-steep-decline-in-activity-into-2025/

There is currently a labour shortage in a whole load of industries.

Is that reported by job seekers ?

In well over 30 years of experience, the only time I have seen a "skills shortage" has been when a company wants to pay £10,000 for a job that commands £15,000 (numbers are for illustration only. Ts&Cs apply. The value of your investment may go down as well as up. Your house may be at risk if you cannot maintain payments).

Elsewhere on this very site, there is a furious discussion about WFH. I wonder how much of that labour shortage is "we can't find a candidate to work in office" ?

And just to add a third leg to the stool, even more elsewhere on this site is another thread about there being no jobs for doctors.

It's all very confusing. But generally if you want to make money, then you need to take a raw resource, add value and then sell it on at a higher price to reflect the value added with the implication being in a free economy that the value added then divides into covering the costs of adding the value plus a "little extra" that is profit.

All of which is predicated upon there being a market for <whatever>.

We need landlords as we have no social housing. So them selling up is not enough to make a difference to house prices, but it does push rents up.
First, ensure plenty of a VARIETY of social housing, then reduce the profitability of landlords.
Same argument applies to Private Schools. First ensure lots of excellent state education places, then tax Private schools.
They are doing it all backwards.

Many landlords are not making vast profits as the cost of borrowing has gone up and the cost of repairs. There is a massive labour shortage in building trades. Everyone knows that. There’s a shortage of building sites with detailed pp and housing associations have no money and borrowing is expensive. So how anyone thinks 1 m homes will be built is beyond most people in the industry. It won’t happen unless the government steps in. I doubt they can find the money either.

Need ?

Only if you have queered the pitch with laws that prevent you building your own home on a patch of land you appropriate. You know. Like we must have done at some point in the past. Or as still happens in some countries and cultures in the world.

Need is a transitive verb. Your need may be my want. At the moment someones want for a nice view overrides someones need for a home.

This isn't a proto manifesto for abandoning "progress". But it is me point out that I am less fooled by words bandied about than some.

I said we need landlords.....because we have no social housing. Its not in isolation

Most towns and cities I visit seem to have massive plots of land which were previously used for industry, not being left to waste with buildings falling down.

We should be re-evaluating what we consider of cultural importance and knock these down to build on. What we do not need is private investors masquerading as housing associations. Government/Council housing with rents proportionate to wages.

With house prices rising way in front of inflation for a number of years, landlords that make only small profits on their tenancy are still gaining. Lets be fair go back five years, stick £150k into the bank and see the return with ridiculously low interest, or let out the house at £1k a month and still have the asset that is now worth £175k. My heart really isn't bleeding.

Sorry just reread, you are talking about buy to let landlords. Well frankly they can get back in the sea as they are very responsible for price rises stopping working people from buying their own home.

Why do we need more houses?
the birth rate is flat at the best measure, not in replacement for many measures,

So, hey, what about if we stop so much immigration, we wouldn’t need more houses?

I wish we’d scrap Ed Millibands madcap net zero hell. We will live to regret the billions he is spunking up the wall,

I wonder what a law to limit home ownership to two a person would look like ? Coupled with one that prevents companies owning domestic properties ?

English property law is the envy of the worlds elites. No other system in history has allowed land to remain in the same families for centuries. No wonder they are beating a path to our schools, they want to learn the secret. After all the food climate and population are hardly attractions.

Labour think they can create growth. It’s such a commie attitude

It’s by definition only the private sector that can create growth and unfortunately for us, Rachel from accounts has gone after the horrid richies in the private sector. A recession is pretty inevitable

Growth axiomatically means you need more people. No matter what sleight of hand is used.

It's the one time I paid attention to Nigel Farage. When he pointed that out and then asked why we were so obsessed with "growth".

Obviously he was being disingenuous. But the lack of engagement with that question was illuminting.

Why do we need more houses? the birth rate is flat at the best measure, not in replacement for many measures

So, hey, what about if we stop so much immigration, we wouldn’t need more houses?

Because the population is still growing due to people living longer. And the old disproportionally own more housing stock than the young.

So in summary - we're all happy and Labour are doing just great.
Yes there will be recession or zero growth, there is already high UK specific inflation which is just about to grow and high unemployment. Yes there will be ancient woodland concreted waiting for 1.5m homes to be build (but no actual builders, sorry).
Life will be shit. But it will be equal shit for everyone who stays on this island. Means it's fair. And we're only happy when it's fair, no matter how bad.

Growth axiomatically means you need more people. No matter what sleight of hand is used.

No! That's wrong and economically illiterate! You don't need more people, you need people to be more productive. Lower number of more productive people will generate much higher living standard (growth) than more unproductive people. If country A has 100 people working part time, in low skilled jobs or on benefits and country B has 30 people who invent new technologies and develop businesses, which one will have higher growth?
The issue is that Labour made it their mission to get rid of category B.

Exactly. Although I don't think Labour realise this

It may be wrong and economically illiterate.

However it is what UK (and indeed US) economies are based on.

If you wanted more productive people, you would invest in infrastructure to make them so. Housing, transport and critically education.