Im 47 and when i was 16 in 1994 my mother decided to work full time and her entire income went to paying off our house as my dad also worked full time and they managed to pay off their house in less than 4 years. Most of my friends mums at that time didnt work at all or just had small part time jobs and everyone still lived in nice large houses with backyards and usually 2 cars.
Sounds like my childhood (I’m 46). There was a distinctly “ladies who lunch” vibe about where I lived, because the mums had so much spare time. In fact my own school would casually assume the mothers of its pupils would always be on hand to turn up in their cars and ferry us kids back and forth to various extra curricular activities. Sounds really sexist, I know, but most of the time the school was right. Most of the mums WERE available to do this. I doubt things are the same today….
@@IbnShahidI lived just outside of New York City Rockland County I'm 43 and two of my best friend's dad's worked at grocery stores and bought nice houses had decent cars and went on vacations🎉 they would sometimes work part-time and sometimes the wives would have part-time jobs when the kids got older🎉 and I remember the wives always made their lunches
It was nothing like this in the early 1990s for most people. Mortgage Interest rates were still double digit rates at the beginning of the decade. Non-food items like TV's and stereos and other electronics were extremely expensive because it was still manufactured by people. Same goes for appliances like refrigerators and stoves. But don't worry. Just like Millennials and GenZ were dismissive of inflation because they hadn't experience it yet, they will soon experience with consumer products once Trumps Tariffs kick in.
@@PhilMoskowitzso then genz won't have stuff, or homes, and haven't had time to build assets. Got it. Toss in AI automation to knock out young carrier gaps and we're setting up a great future.
I've been thinking for years about this kind of "life inflation". You have to have two incomes now to live the life one income bought before the 80s. You have to have a degree or similar now to have almost any chance of getting a job, in the 80s and before you didn't. A gym fit body now, or at least the aspiration of one, is the default standard, 25 years ago the gym and body building was a niche interest. In every single aspect of life people have to do much more and work much harder to live the same life people did a generation or two ago.
Absolutely. My father was born in 1940 and he started his teaching career at the age of 19 with just a year's training under his belt. Nowadays you'd need 'QTS', gained from a degree as a minimum but typically achieved by people when they are much older. This is just one example but it was like that for that whole generation. We had full employment and a manufacturing industry at that time. The posh term is 'credential inflation', otherwise know as raising the entry bar. People aren't any smarter than they were then, that's basically, a lie. Higher education is another ponzy scheme, like the property market, in fact like the entire debt-fuelled economy. People didn't waste years at 'uni' just to be able to get a crappy job which doesn't meet living costs, my father was in the minority as most people left school at 15 and most of them were on on the property ladder, quite seriously on it, by the time they were in their early to mid 20s.
@@billyliar1614 Smoking on the job and drinks on the lunch break weren't out of place either. Now you can't afford to smoke, can't smoke in the pub, and can't even afford to go to the pub. This country is a disgrace.
We are also far more affected by inflammation increasing agents and endocrine system disrupting chemicals. This messes with our brains. Put being glued to an ipad since age 3 on top of that.
I’m in Ohio and the housing market here over the last 7-8 years is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Homes that were bought for $130K in 2015 are now being sold for $590k. I’m talking about tiny, disgusting, poorly built 950 square foot shit boxes in quiet mediocre neighbourhoods. Then you’ve got Better, average sized homes in nicer neighbourhoods that were $300K+ 10 years ago selling for $750k+ now. Wild times.
Home prices will come down eventually, but for now; get your money (as much as you can) out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. The new mortgage rates are crazy, add to that the recession and the fact that mortgage guidelines are getting more difficult.
Home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes.If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now its best you seek an independent advisor who knows about the financial markets.
My CFA SOPHIE LYNN CARRABUS a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further... She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market..
I don't always agree with Mr. Sutherland but I always enjoy his train of thought. He always manages to show two sides of the same coin and allows you to choose which side you want to plant your flag on.
I think what he’s trying to say is this: inflation is a result, in part, of demand. I.e.: the price of things is mediated by what people are able to pay. If things are priced too highly relative to the amount of money people have they won’t sell; if people get more money, the price of things will go up, because sellers are now able to sell for more without affecting demand. In a world where households only had one earner, this kept the price of property at a certain level. When women entered the workforce suddenly household incomes doubled, thus households had more money to spend on property - thus inflation in house prices. Effectively, people ended up doing twice as much work to end up living in the same conditions as they started in.
That's his claim, indeed it does have a degree of validity however it is relatively a minor factor in the altering of the property market, far greater significance is caused by the effective removal of social housing, the restrictions on supply through planning and the increased commodification of homes as an asset class with highly favourable taxation policy. Another far greater effect on the supply and demand ratio is demographic and the huge increase in single person households not even hinted at. He seems utterly oblivious to the static caravan market in the UK and just how exploitative it is of the tennant in relation to the land owner.
The UK property price boom has been the result of almost a perfect storm in a way. Two incomes, reduction of social housing, restriction of supply and massive reduction in interest rates.
That's analog to claiming it's not wet because it rained, but because water fell down from the sky. "Demand exploded" is *exactly* the mechanism through which money dispersal translates into inflation. Look up "cantillon effect" if you are interested in the subject.
Check out all the “year round open holiday caravan park sites” that have people living there all year round with no alternative addresses. Local Authorities are absolutely scared to death of enforcing the rules because it might mean housing list gets bigger so it’s a case of outta sight “site” outta mind. I got this from a fella who worked for East Cheshire Council and then realised its nationwide. Most of them are run by millionaire traveller families as well.
Meant to add the rules are unless the park is residential then they shouldn’t be there all year and need to be off site for 2 weeks. Every owner should also have a valid alternative address and be paying council tax there etc.
Henry Ford was not being altruistic. Mass production of cars was the end to fabrication, which meant you either worked for ford, or didn’t work at all as a mechanic. Add to that the amount of work labourers were tasked with, workers demanded more money because they couldn’t work anywhere else, since there was nothing left outside of ford. Ford also never hesitated when firing workers when markets worsened, which led to morale issues that still existed in car manufacturing plants in the west well into the 80s. Toyota faced similar problems, but instead of letting everyone go, they decided to not only pay fair wages, but promised to fire only those workers deemed necessary to keep the automaker in the black, and THEN to not fire anyone, making sure that if you stayed, you were rewarded, and the longer you stayed, the better your pay was, and more learned you became, thus helping Toyota in the short and long term. Everyone needs to read “the machine that changed the world” by Womack, Jones, and Ross.
Ford also had to offer raises to the mechanics, significant raises, because the task of making cars became joyless once you become a part of the assembly line. How many people these days work joyless lives that were made joyless and isolating because of tech advancements?
This is an interesting conversation but you can tell the guy lacks a lot of context. Mobile homes have a huge issue with price gouging of lot rents. The cost to move is prohibitively expensive for most people, and the things need to go somewhere so people end up stuck. Boats for power generation don’t work because the majority of the work of power production is anticipating and meeting demand. It would create periodic crises where communities would have to bid for energy without developing reliable production capacity for themselves. Price gouging would be inevitable. Interesting convo, but the solutions are just an exercise without any real analysis of the real factors involved.
And of course mobile homes halve in value over 3-5 years So when accounting for depreciation of the asset it’s still cheaper to rent Added to that banks don’t want to lend on assets that deprecate and can be moved, so you go from a situation in which someone needs £20k deposit and £600/month mortgage payment for a house to needing £80k up front which will dissolve into nothing a decade later
Scotland has already banned camping overnight in motorhomes in most places. England is getting there. The motorhome industry is dying in the country and clearly Rory has no idea.
I'm 2 generations away from my family carrying their water from a river, eating fruit one time during 6 months of the year, and having to carry firewood to school to heat the classroom. I walk around with a super computer in my pocket. Count your blessings, Praise God!
it is hard for us humans to not take things for granted. we do not see the luxury we live in as abstraction and reasoning is very hard if you do not know hunger or thirst
Hmm not really. Cos like he said, many other things are more affordable than they used to be. If what you said were true, then everything would be less affordable.
@ouessantpeaches6122 Something can go up in price but be more affordable, so long as it doesn't go up as much as inflation would dictate, for example: the cost to make batteries has gone down by 90% in the last decade. Can you honestly tell me you've noticed?
No tax as a percentage of the economy has gone up but not as much as one is led to believe historically low during the early 1990s a period of increased public borrowing but still averaging the mid 30s percentage point over the entirety of the decade, what has altered significantly however is on whom that tax burden falls, the UK tax system has become significantly less progressive over the last fifty years which has arguably driven inequality and asset price inflation relative to commodity price inflation, the commodification of property as an income generating asset class being a particularly egregious issue as shelter is such a fundamental to one's existence.
7:35 ‘I also own two small flats’. The problem isn’t that dual incomes have increased house prices, they are still around 3x salary. The problem is the second income can be used to buy a property to rent out. And once that property’s mortgage is being paid by the renter, you can go buy _another_ property. And unlike homes that get sold on as people upscale or downscale, these never return to the market. I’ve seen rental prices in one area double simply because all the properties are snapped up by three landlords.
When I was on a single income of 35000 ater tax I had about £2200 Rent, bills, council tax, subsriptions, phone , travel ,food = 1900 So I have more disposible money on Benefits. Economy is broken badly when thats the case.
Brother what are you smoking? I'm on benefits right now and have NO disposable income. Do you really think you'd have more money to spend while on benefits? Bro...
@@adamaa39 there is no thinking involved mate. When working full time traveling to london and living alone i had less than £200 to spend on luxuries with UC I have about £250
Another issue which is never mentioned is that bedsits were outlawed. This was the cheapest tier of accomodation, often poor quality but at least it was better than sleeping outside.
As usual, any conversation about house prices comes down to the lack of a Land Value Tax. Had the UK managed to pass the LVT bill in 1905 this country would be vastly richer and more equal than it is today. But it was killed for the same reason we are unlikely to be able to fix it now, the rich who own the land will do anything to stop LVT.
How on Earth would an additional tax make housing cheaper? If our benevolent government wanted to make housing more affordable (which evidently they don't), they'd need to build more housing and/or reduce immigration, that's literally it.
There are houses a mile from me worth over £1 million pounds that pay £165 a month in council tax, the only tax applicable to their property. That is ridiculous. It absolutely inflates housing, because it lets people sit on assets that have in some cases become worth 10x what they were purchased for without having to pay tax against that increased value, but being able to borrow against it or release equity. It lets them sit on property until it sells for a value they think it’s worth as well, while generating nothing productive for the economy
@@chrisdoel2778 The rationale is to tax the value of land independent of any improvements on it, which discourages land banking & hoarding by turning it into a financial liability instead of an asset & you'd see a lot of property currently held by financial speculators released to the market. This will then discourage market behaviours which arbitrarily drive land values up & discourage rent seeking on land alone. It's hardly a panacea though, Australia has LVT & it's real estate is famously NOT cheap right now.
@@restlesscow2137 Except that would destroy the family the other way, instead of financially, because women naturally cannot be attracted to men who stay home and do the feminine gender role.
In the long run the dull normal ordinary people always lose because they’re not capable of being exceptional or escaping from the trap. And all of society will crumble because working women want men who make at least 50% more than they do, which becomes statistically impossible hence the birth rate crashes and there are insufficient younger workers to keep the old age pensions funded. It’s now gotten to the point where if you lack mad homesteading skills you’re reduced to either living in a motor vehicle of some sort or escaping to afloat living on a sailboat or some sort of a houseboat. And again, dull normal people can’t hack it so they're screwed.
Is that 2.5x the man's salary PLUS (1/2)*2.5x the woman's salary? Or, is it 2.5x the man's salary PLUS 1/2 the woman's salary (i.e., 2.5 years worth or man's salary + 0.5 years worth of woman's salary)?
Thats exactly what happened. My dad was a bank manager and my mum a housewife, could afford a decent semi in oxford. No chance now. Women especially have been conned,and understandabky struggle to feel like tgey are succeeding in all parts of life.
This was obviously going to happen the moment women went into the workforce. Same situation with marriages and the family unit. No-one found a good solution to balance out that everyone wants women to have the same opportunities, but society wasn't and isn't set up to allow for it at all. So we steamed ahead anyway and here we are.
also, we have people with mobile housing already, the gypsies, and they're almost universally hated. And what kind of energy requirement that needs nuclear ends after 8 months ? What ?
To put the price gouging into context and how prices are artificially inflated above the rate of inflation. There’s houses near me that were built in the 1850’s for industrial revolution mill workers, the poorest people in society at the time, people who would not have the money to pay a lot for a house. Those same houses are now going for £250,000+ . There’s absolutely no way that when these houses were first built, the first occupants paid anywhere near that percentage of their salary. The cost of building the house must have been paid off by now several times over.
When those houses were originally built they were owned by the mills that constructed them, as well as the roads and other civic amenities - it was housing for workers, so if they stopped working for the mills they would have to leave. Employer-provided housing still exists today and can be anything from prefab aluminium dormitories to full detached houses too, It just stopped being standard after various scandals from the 1880s onwards where employers leveraged the risk of immediate homelessness to keep workers down, selling off these older developments as they aged and needed new investment for renovations, and then after WW2 when many government programs sought to make private home ownership wide accessible. It was those programs that actually started the ballooning and commodification of housing, since guaranteed credit simply inflates prices.
He talks about demand without talking about supply. In places where people actually want to live, e.g. London, Cambridge and Oxford, it's effectively impossible to meet the demand because of the restraints of the planning system.
That's true only for the big cities, but what for the rest of the country? Small towns get empty, still rents and house prices goes up, middle class can't own an house... something isn't working right
@@giacomonicoli5822 Cambridge? I grew up around Scunthorpe and moved to Huntingdon for work. I often find myself on client sites in Cambridge and I think it is a complete SHITHOLE. Think that through - I grew up around Scunthorpe for crying out loud. I'd rather live in 70's Belfast than pothole "Greggs & Betfred" Cambridge.
I'm from Cambridge and I live there now. I'd agree with the shit hole comment. It's a rubbish city to live in - relatively few facilities (especially outside the centre) massive inequality which is only going to get worse as the government push science and tech business growth in the area. The science park has been here since the 70s, adjacent to the poorest area of the city. It's still the poorest area of the city and will only become worse and more science and tech companies continue to bring in more experienced, well paid roles that will drive house prices up, leaving the local population behind.
Two other big problems - Interest rates have been too low, for too long. So buying larger and larger houses became affordable, at least in terms of a monthly payments. Housing then became an investment, with lots of people buying more than one house to rent in part because housing is the only thing to increase in value consistently relative to inflation... in part because interest rates are so low. - Another problem is all the miracles he's talking about cost money and erode our incomes. Running water, power, internet, cable tv, streaming, car payments, cellphone plans all of these things cost money and we can't live without them but most of them didn't exist (or at least weren't very common) 100 years ago. Some like cellphones and internet only became ubiquitous in the past 2 decades and that's hundreds of dollars per household. So the cost of living a 'good' life has increased much faster relative to base salaries.
1) We should have a tax for city center apartments that are not in active use. Owner should either rent it or sell it, not use as a safe haven for your money or keep it empty for years on end. 2) We should forbid companies or investment companies from owning residential housing in cities (designated areas for residential housing) 3) Illegal immigrants should be housed in a tent with water, soup and bread. They can then return home or learn the local language, values, get a job and integrate. Not to be housed in city hotels and apartments on tax payer money 4) welfare customers should not be allowed to live unemployed near the city center for over 10 years. Either get a job or forced to move to a cheaper city as normal people do. 5) We need to start cutting the ridiculous red tape that adds on to the cost of new housing.
1) whole heartedly agree, or have the property apply an extra tax for being vacant (incentivise them to sell it) 2) companies and investment firms should be able to own apartment complexes or buildings, but not single detached or townhouses. They should aslo have a forced rental cap based on a government provided guideline. 3) Despite them being illegally in the country, they are still humans and deserve to be treated as such. We don't know their individual circumstances and shouldn't lump them all into one category without assessment of each. Should they be put into luxury hotels at the cost of taxpayers though? No. There needs to be a fair middle ground for both parties. 4) Again, this is entirely based on individual cases. However, for the few who do try and milk the system, there needs to be appropriate consequences. 5) Housing affordability has been spiraling out of control for more than 3 decades all over the world. It's going to take a lot more than cutting red tape to improve this. This is also happening in nearly every part of the world too, not just the UK. Boomers have had it good and the rest of us are getting scraps.
In many local authority areas in the UK there is a penalty if you leave your property empty. You pay double local tax, and in some areas of Wales it's triple. Doesn't really do much to solve the housing shortage though. I think the government should pass a law to take over abandoned properties, which might work better.
3) put them up in hotels but for the first 5 years get them out in the local community cleaning it up, making it look nice or some other kind of community service
House prices keep going up due to bank and government money printing. People borrow excessively to buy a property because cash is getting devalued every year. People use property for a store of value rather than for it's utility. While money printing continues scarce assets will continue to go up. Buy Bitcoin and keep it for longer than 4 years you will thank your future self.
Supply and demand is the biggest factor, 8 million added to the population has made everything worse, and another 10 million expected by 2040 will see a city of tents, Britain is dead.
@@Theother1089it's an interesting point considering how many of the largest technological advances in history were funded socially, but generally true.
@Nexus804 socially is too broad a term, for example, some people claim Scandinavia is socialist however it's wealth comes from being part of globalist capitalism.
It's impossible for any UK government to do anything seismic with housing. None of them can implement sweeping reform, even if they somehow were able to overrule local authorities, because you have a huge cohort of voters who own houses - or at least have large mortgages - and don't want to see them devalued. A party that promised to level off house prices, or worse - reduce them - to make them within the realms of mere mortals to buy, would be soundly voted out at the next election. On top of this you have people who are quite happy to pull the ladder up behind them. People talk about wanting more houses built, but when they've got their own house they object to any being built nearby. It's no surprise people get more big C conservative as they get older, as their attitudes coalesce towards supporting "I'm alright Jack" policies and parties.
What's occurring is completely predictable. The purchase of housing occurs in an unregulated capitalist market insofar as if you can purchase a property, there is no restriction on how many properties you can purchase. If you extrapolate an unregulated capitalist market to its logical endpoint, the end result is that one entity will eventually own the entire market. What you'll see is initially the smallest / poorest players in the market get priced out of it first, but over time bigger players will get eaten up. Eventually a point will come where one entity has so much dominance in a market they can use their market power to crush every other player in the market. This is what we're seeing in the housing market. People of low socio-economic status have been priced out of the housing market for quite a long time, but we're now starting to see the middle class get squeezed out of the property market. And it will only get worse until radical change occurs. Residential housing should only be available to buy to people who want to live in the house. If people want to be landlords and rent properties out for commercial gain, then only property designated as commercial should be available for that.
What you have described it exactly how the game MONOPOLY ends. After playing it several times you understand the flaws of the system. You will certainly lose if you decide not to exploit others and remain a caring and honest person. I decided not to play anymore with my friends but in real life I remain a piece on the board. Still renting in one of the most expensive cities in the world. His point on two salaries is exact and I believe that all laws and legislation should be based on bachelors\ettes since for them it is simply impossible to own a house nowadays. Married folks actually have more tax benefits, help from families and society itself.
That argument is being repeated all over the Internet. The problem is that it's not true. Corporations own about 1% of the total housing, not enough to have any significant impact on prices. The real problem is that building isn't keeping up with demand. I don't know about the UK, but in U.S. cities, which are largely controlled by Democrats, there are all kinds of zoning laws and regulations that make it difficult and expensive for builders to build, especially smaller houses that people could actually afford.
@@darylfoster7944 It's in the process of happening. An extrapolation is a predicted outcome based on the current data and trend line. In Australia there are people that own 100 houses and the rate they are purchasing more houses is increasing. If they are allowed to continue, they or their descendants will eventually get big enough where they will be a corporation.
That has literally never happened in a capitalist market. Monopolies only form on rare occasion and never last long except in government regulated markets.
@@docd2295 Yes it has. It's just not visually obvious. But companies are fixing prices and cooperating with each other to keep prices high essentially engaging in cartel behaviour. For example where I live, with Compulsory Third Party insurance on a motor vehicle , there are 5 companies that you can go with and guess what? They are all exactly the same price. It's happening more than you think. You just can't see it.
So TLDR of his argument is: - when working families have 2 salaries their disposable income grows - all people need shelter/housing - when you limit the supply of housing (mostly zoning/other regulations) the price of a house will rise, because it's an essential good So the law of supply and demand. With limited supply for something essential the price would go up.
Average house price Vs Av. Income has gone crazy. Factory workers used to afford a nice house on 1 income. Now consultants & teachers can't afford a 1bed flat.
It's not a double income issue. It's the home ownership consolidation, and I would say feudalisation. Renting keeps people poor because they can not build their own wealth by having property. Instead, they invest it all in third party.
For people who want to dive deeper into this phenomenon: there have been two books published on this subject that I can recommend: The Empty Raincoat by Charles Handy (1995) and Why Things Bite Back by Edward Tenner (1996). Love Rory for his flamboyant and razor sharp story telling. His videos always feel too short.
Three points that I would like to make. First, forty years ago the largest element in monthly mortgage payments was to cover the interest which was typically 15 per cent. The capital element was more modest, and therefore so were house prices. Now, and for nearly 20 years the interest element has been much smaller than the capital element as a result of, especially since 2008, extremely low interest rates. Second, the single hospital consultant in my area (Cumbria) earns much more EACH YEAR than the average house price. How therefore does the gentleman's argument stand up? it only does so if one lives in an area where house prices are high. That is not the case for much of the country, although for the London area and the southeast, as well as in regional large city centres and suburbs (but not always in towns within one hour's commuting distance) it is. London is a special case, partly because of large influxes of overseas-derived capital. Third, even forty years ago buying a [property was a struggle for young people. Without help from relatives, one had to fill a flat or house with paying flatmates, sleep for years on the sofa in the communal living room oneself, work in two or three jobs for 100 hours a week for years and to forego holidays and cars (and indeed, do all of the above). One suspects that many in the younger generation are not prepared to do thus. I will not say if that is good or bad but it is probably a reality of life that many overlook when they tut-tut about the UK housing situation.In the wider context and perspective, people should at least try to focus on making something of their situation rather than wallow in professional victimhood. Vicarious professional victimhood is worse still, and nauseating to witness.
In my country, a small condominium apartment costs well over a million, and there is a legal minimum of 25% downpayment. As a 30 year-old, I had to fork out nearly half a million upfront just to afford the downpayment and taxes on a small apartment that I just bought. I was shocked that in the US you only need a 3.5% downpayment. But the fact that this is still unaffordable for many means that there are cost of living issues aside from housing prices (and rent itself is often mentioned as one). For those who have parents who actually own their own home, count yourself lucky and consider moving back in. The rent you save can afford you the downpayment in a couple of years.
There's so much more involved than dual income etc. We need to understand why in certain parts of the world owning your home is important and in others it isn't. For example, why does almost half of the people in most EU countries rent? Why are people in the UK so obsessed with owning their own home? etc. As for house prices in the UK, a big part is all the regulations to get land freed up for development. As soon as a new housing estate starts to pop up, they have no problem selling all the houses. The only problem is the rate at which these new houses are popping up.
The big element, thankfully, Mr Sutherland understands is that Land is not Capital or a Product (including Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Winston Churchill, and J.M Keynes, to name a few heavyweights i.e. economics is Land (Rent), Production and Capital). It's unique as it cannot be created (product) and is not capital as its value is the rent it creates via scarcity and production value of fertility, place, and time. Land is the domain of Rentier Capitalism (ref; Brett Christophers, Thomas Piketty r>g, Mariana Mazzucato) that extracts wealth from the incomes of production, whilst adding no value to society, only to the rentier landlord, who does nothing but collect rent!
I have been saying the same thing, woman working ultimately pushed up asset prices and now it’s pretty much essential for them to work to afford a house.
Thats a factor. But the big one is the loosening of commercial lending regulations, sustained periods of low interest rates, right to buy, help to buy and also the uncontrolled flood of foreign labour and capital flowing into the country in search of somewhere to live/ a safe bet to park their spare investment monies. The housing market could be reigned in with sensible regulation and taxation. But too many people have their fingers in the pie to let meaningful change happen.
I look at my mam & dad’s life when I was growing up in the late 80’s / 90’s. My mam only worked part time as a dinner lady & my dad worked for a construction company. They had a very easy life, had a big house, raised two kids & got to retire fairly early. Fast forward to my existence, I’m divorced because my wife & I couldn’t afford children so split up. I work two jobs 7 days a week just to exist, if I worked only one job I’d lose my house probably in two months. We really are living through hard times. The only way out of my situation is winning the lottery or suicide, the latter is becoming more appealing by the day.
@@seanm3226 As he mentioned in the clip - it leads to a lot of asset hoarding as opposite to say investing in innovative businesses. Holding money in property, inflating property values.
@@seanm3226it's a zero sum game. The biggest company eats up all the smaller ones until it has a monopoly. It concentrates wealth at the very top of society. You end up with a multitudes of poor people and a tiny percentage at the very top of society who own most of the wealth.
@@seanm3226 Free market fundamentalists are neurotic people who are incapable of considering opposing points of view. They are just as bad as the communist types they are always complaining about. Balance is the key to success in everything. There is truly a time and a place for everything.
@@JimmyTheGiantif you had an actually free market in housing there would be a LOT more of it and prices WAY lower. The restrictions on building due to zoning, “economic planning”, and rent control in many major cities is the reason prices grow faster than they should.
My dad bought a house 20 years ago near Bromley £217000. Sold it for £600000. He wouldn't be able to buy the same house now if he was in same position insane.
Not just land issues. I remember when I worked at HPES they talked about ‘Total Addressable Wallets’ as in we knew the UK Gov had x to spend on IT contracts so we had to get as much as we could out of them including simply doubling the prices I’d worked out for my service. Now the UK is offering grants of £7.5k for Heat Pumps so suddenly all installs costs £10k+ They costs a lot less in the Nordics where wages are higher and they need better installations! Greed.
But the heat pumps in Norway are air to air, not air to water as in UK. The price of a2a system is apx 3-7k installed. They provide warm air, not warm water piped to radiators etc. They are also known as aircon! No gov subsidy for these.
This is awesome. I was arguing this point with friends, but I didn't have the eloquent British accent and told I was sexist lol. But yes, it is just economics. And the point cannot be understated about loss of discretionary time. People can't afford a house, because technically the median is having 2 adults working. The easiest way to fix this is to lower the percentage of income allowed for how big your mortgage can be by 25-50% of current. This effectively removes this problem, but you would crush property values.
Just a reminder if we want the benifits of the past we need to be open to the culture and attitudes of the past. Everyone talks about how wonderful it was living on a single income in a community who knew each other and a world where you always had sundays off and everything else but you very rarely hear people pointing out that none of those came from policy. Women typically left the workforce after they got married because thats what was socially expected and they would be seen as strange if they didn't. People knew each other because families didn't tend to move around very much and everyone largely went to the same social functions and cared about what they believed and what the people around them believed. Christmas, Easter and Sunday were sacrosanct because Christianity was completely dominant and people were willing to stand up for it. There are countless other examples but we need to remember that while government can play a role it doesn't actually build a culture. We need to do that ourselves, and frankly the way people act today won't build anything.
@macsmiffy2197 another good point, when you feel a connection and duty to the people you live near you'll spend a little more to support them over huge corporations
Government can destroy a culture with its policies though , whether mass immigration, pushing sexual deviance or killing off viable industries like the coal miners. When a government represents global money and not the wishes of the demos , social cohesion is over.
I usually like him, but his analysis completely misses out the artifical constraints of the planning system (which was introduced specifically to constrain development), population growth without increased construction, and the movement of wealth from true investment to rentierism as a result of government overregulation of investment, alongside the legalisation of buy to let mortgages, Brown's pensions raid, availability of cheap credit since the early 2000s, artifically low interest rates (which are still historically low) and quantitative easing since 2008.
Socialism doesn’t work because prices are eliminated once the means of production are owned by the government. Turns out we need prices to know what the people want and what they don’t want at any given time.
Issue with the moving houses every couple years (disentangling house from land) is schooling for children. IN the US at lease, location is very tightly associated with the community, and is one of the things that determines house values. No one wants to pull their kids out of school every 3 years (just ask base brats).
Yeah it doesnt make sense. Like, the ship would have to plug in to the network, so a huge infrastricture is required for that only for it to be temporary ? Then what ? Ship sails away, infrastructure is pointless and what substitutes are there for the energy it used to produce. And while it sails ? What to do with the energy other than propel the ship. "Within reason" my ass with such ludicrous ideas
@@imrichkaslik4404 it's already in use in Russia, they move the ship to where they need extra energy resource. With the UK grid being much smaller, not sure how much it applies to us?
It's strange that when I wes employed at a shcool in the 1970s we had a German student who had a brand new car and had holidays in exotic places whereas we had rough second hand bangers and looked forward to a holidy in spain, but, hardly anyone in Gemany owned houses and were all rentals with a rent cap.
A lot of people spend money on conveniences which keep them in the poor house. Do you need an iPhone 16 with an unlimited data plan? Do you need 4K streaming internet. Do you need six cable/satellite/streaming providers? Do you need to go out for Applebees, or could you bake a casserole and choke it down over the course of three days? Do you need a $65/month gym membership? Do you need to spend $60K plus interest and insurance on a truck that never hauls more than a couple 2x4s and several bags of groceries you could fit in the back of a Nissan Versa (or a 10 year old junker). Does your C-average kid HAVE to go to University and live on campus when they could just as well go to a community college and live at home for 10% of the price? People forget these aren't all necessities and wind up incurring gobs of debt to feel "normal" I guess. Things haven't changed as much as the number of ways you could spend money has.
Wife and I have 5 incomes. 2 jobs, 2 pensions, a part time job. Last year I said, "if you could just work 4 hours of OT each week it would help." How ridiculous is that?
Also, governments need to de-centralize industries away from urban areas. If companies can be spread across several smaller cities and towns, it'll go a long way in lowering property prices, urban migration, and urban congestion
Doesn't help that since 2000 the percentage of the UK population who are landlords has gone from 3% to 20%. If supply came more readily available properties wouldn't suddenly get far cheaper and you'd still have private equity firms and the wealthiest buying up the excess for their portfolios. At the end of the day, the people you want to stop bringing into the country are not the ones who are buying up extortionately priced houses.
@@allrednow They have to live somewhere. So they drive up the costs of rents which drives up the value. It's supply and demand. Reduce the demand or build 600,000 units per year.
Not with our birth rate (lowest in recorded history)/ageing population issue it isn’t. We have under-built enough houses for decades. Perhaps it’s a Ponzi scheme to replace all the industry we have lost.
He is indirectly referring to Land values being reduced to make housing affordable and not being held by leasehold landlordism, which raises the price of freehold land to match yields gained from production wealth (wages). How do we kill land values? 1) Rent control is sanctioned by a government freeze for 4 years, and then local rent controls are sanctioned by local authorities relating to local incomes. (it worked from 1915-1988) 2) A stop/go policy of controlled finance for mortgages to stop land inflation, with mortgages being the scarce factor, not land. Yes, it means waiting for a mortgage, but would you rather pay in today's money between £200,000 -£600,000 more for an average house that is purely the commodified element? The conjecture of this is the end of state welfarism to asset welfarism which is great if you have an asset; if not, you're screwed, and that is now the old unskilled working class and newly educated middle (who don't have a bank of Mum and Dad, who are now the 10th biggest lender in the country for property).
It is absolutely not true that a consultant surgeon cannot afford to buy alone. They earn over £100k. Anyone earning £100k can afford to buy a house on their own.
@@henryrogers6790 Average house price in Maidstone is £350,000. Canterbury - £327,000. Someone on over £100,000 can afford to buy a house like that on their own.
Not in London. In any case, also depends on what you say "afford" is. If you want to be mortgaged to the hilt, then you can "afford" it on a single income of 100k.
@DorianGrayism In London agree. However where I live in Cheshire, you could drive a van for me, earn 35k+. Terrace 5 mins walk from me going for 100-115k. That's 1 man's wage x 3(ish)
I’m with him about the impact of two income houses. Not so close to his views around sailing nuclear power plants. If they are large enough to power something of substance, they would be too heavy to sail.
We have too many people, which drives up prices. Banks make it too difficult to get a mortgage. Saying that, all three of my kids are buying their own houses.
A quick search will show what happened to the disconnect around the 1970s between productivity and wages. Before then, they were in sync, but after they diverged as imported labour and technological development displaced the workforce. The system is heading towards being permanently broken and the need for a universal basic income becoming more evident.
The UK population, which was estimated to be 67.0 million in mid-2021, is projected to rise by 6.6 million to 73.7 million over the next 15 years to mid-2036. We cannot simply build our way out of this issue.
Until the local constables knock on your window and want to arrest you for loitering or vagrancy. I was literally asked to move on by cops or face arrest when I was homeless.
There's no way you are saving 4k rent per month lmao. You're actually not even saving 1 AUD, because there's a difference between saving and not spending. I do like the idea of van life, but at this point you're just lying to yourself big time kek
I have to disagree ,the reason house prices have increased is due to supply and demand not because owners where taking advantage of couples having more income . local authorities where building over 150.000 house per year averagely since 1947 right up until 79 when there was a massive decline to almost no local authorities building houses by the end of the decade. can we remember who got elected in 79 ? combined with privet firms the uk was building more than 300,000 house per year for over 25 years sometimes hitting 400,000 houses in a year since 79 it dropped to 200,000 and below ,some years not hitting 130,000 all private we have had a very sharp increase in population. demand his up supply is low , they know how much we have and the very people who we elected to look after our interests are invested in taking the most from us . not one government since 79 has been overly concerned with what works best for all and what works best for a country's long term economic growth. spending the rest of your life paying more than three times what something is worth to a f banker who created the money out of thin air and does f all for your money but say yes . and then the government may take it from you in the end to pay to look after you . imagine our booming economy if we where not giving half our income to pay for the roof over our heads 1980s: 4.2 times income Current market: 8.8 times income. in 80 just 12 % of your income , if it was that way now we would be eating out doing up kitchen etc a stolen future .and who stole it ? the stupid fers who voted for her and her children .
Its not all about supply and demand in total as one house doesnt equal another. The premium houses close to population centres see significant price rises as double income households can pay more for them than a single income household. Single income affordable houses get pushed further and further away from population centres and facilities as cashed up double income households outbid each other in a race into debt which continues to inflate prices. Another thing to consider if that you cant just build another 300k houses in London, New York, Paris, Sydney etc. Generally any new housing is being built in the fringes of these cities further and further away which means the people cant afford to pay as much for them which means that the builders cant make enough profit due to increased labour and material costs and environmental regulations and so those houses dont get built which leads to even more housing shortages.
In the current economic climate, a home is not the best investment. I've already sold my Boca Grande area home, but I want to invest roughly $200,000 in stocks since I've heard that even in challenging times, investors may turn a profit. Any excellent ideas for stocks?
The truth is that if you make the right picks, you could make killer riches very quickly, although such profit usually needs expertise, as in hedge funds or financial managers. I personally prefer the latter.
I agree. Based on personal experience working with an investment advlsor, I currently have $985k in a well-diversified portfollo that has experienced exponential growth. It's not only about having money to invest in st0cks, but you also need to be knowledgeable.
How can I participate in this? I sincerely aspire to establish a secure financlal future and am eager to participate. Who is the driving force behind your success?
Finding financial advisors like Annette Christine Conte who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
Thank you for the information. I conducted my own research on google and your advisor appears to be highly skilled and knowledgeable. I've sent her an email and arranged a phone call.
Changed jobs from doorman at clubs to night work at a hospital during covid. Given the amenities at work and the increasing rent for a shoebox I decided to live in a very simple work horse toyota. I work long shifts and can shower and eat at work I literally just needed a place to sleep. And as for girls a hotel and a simple diet and a physical job kept my options open for casual sex. I have spent since 2020 to now sleeping in my car and I have a property I am renting while I am working at the same time. I have almost paid off the mortgage on the 2 bedroom flat and the toyota was 900 quid and it's steaming right along. Soon when the flats paid off I'll pull my savings and liquidity of the flat into a family home and might even rent that out until that's paid off. You can pay your mortgage off these days but it takes sacrifice.
Bubble residential prices are not unique to the UK. Parts of the USA, Canada, NZ and Australia are experiencing the same inflated prices. What those countries have in common, apart from those conditions mentioned in the video, is long-term low interest rates. Cheap long-term money. Another driver is cash... buyers who benefited from the inflation can afford, after sale, to buy their next property for cash. Immigration is also a factor.
That's not it. I don't care how much money Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos has, as long as I have enough to live comfortably. I only need one nice house to be happy. I couldn't care less how many palaces the mega rich own.
@Rosskles I honestly don't care about wealth inequality. There's nothing wrong with it in my view, because I'm not a communist. Why should I care if someone makes 100 or 1000 times more than I do? My only concern is that I have enough to provide for my family. Once you strip away the envy (a capital sin), all the talk about income inequality makes little sense. I am concerned about JUSTICE, not inequality. It is not just to take from the rich in order to give to the poor. That is theft, wrapped up in technical sounding euphemisms. The rich have a moral obligation to help the poor, but it is not the government's job to redistribute wealth.
two incomes isnt the CAUSE of high housing prices but an effect. housing prices went up entirely due to government restrictions on home construction causing a shortage of supply. they do it on purpose and sometimes even ADMIT that their regulations are intended to "maintain high property values". keeping high property values means they are ON PURPOSE putting in place regulations to drive up housing prices. so if the city planning commissions admit they are doing this, why do we refuse to blame them for it?
....And keep a non woking wife , and two kds .( 1960's council estate). No car or foreign hols , but did OK on dad's wage . Why?The bills were minute , today it would cost more to collect them !
@@normanpearson8753there were hardly any bills. People didn't have things like fridges and freezers (in uk) til the 'Seventies. Many didn't have a phone or washing machine. These all add to the electric bill. Coal on the fire was the heating. Holiday was a week at the seaside on a caravan site, or none at all.
I agree on most parts but the issue is actually land ownership and to a lesser degree planning. Imagine if we had no massive private land owners. Everyone could afford easily land. It is possible
Not necessarily - depends where you live in the UK. London or SE or parts of South of England £100k income might get you enough borrowing for a 1 or maybe 2 bed flat.
@@silver4831 No sorry I paid £140,000 for my house and I earn 27k though you can buy flats for around £40k where I live, I live in West Yorkshire and house prices up north and vastly different to down south
Look at Japan they have two wage households but apart from in Tokyo falling house prices for decades . It’s immigration that has driven up house prices , supply and demand
I see what you're getting at, but migrants aren't the root cause. Migration is a constant across the world throughout history. I'd suggest that it's because of migration that we don't have the same problems of aging population. There are a variety of pressures that must be relieved to reduce the housing crisis.
@@Maxibo234 migration is making it hard for young couples to find somewhere to start a family . i know multiple couples living in vans or caravans deferring having children . so what you think is helping is causing low birth rate
people live in london to network and gain clout from those relationships in their industry that allows them to improve profit margins and power and influence that keep their opportunities optimised. once they have those they move out.
It has definitely had negative effects, but we aren't looking at a concentrated issue in the social housing sector. Immigration is the key driving factor that so many are incentivised to pretend doesn't exist.
@Atamanxxxvii immigration has an impact, but it's overall effect is negligible. It's bizarre for you to say that we "pretend it doesn't exist", when basically that's all the media goes on about - and basically the entirety of the conservative party basically runs on anti-immigration as a single issue. In fact, I'd go as far to say that anti-immigration is the dominant political issue in modern politics. Regardless, the idea that our housing crisis is due to immigration is ludicrous. Immigrants don't own houses in this country, and they certainly weren't the reason why we stopped building houses. Most of the UK land is either owned by the monarch or by wealthy landlords. Thatcher literally passed a bill stopping councils from building new properties. And your response to that is to look at poor brown people seeking economic opportunity? Should we control immigration? Yes. Is it the reason nobody can buy a house without going into immense debt? Not even close.
We have in the UK, a conservative figure of £70 million population, probably nearer 80. All on a land mass that even the most optimistic view point should really allow for is 40, 45 million. 52% of the population are in receipt ofso.e sort of benefits from the social security system. In the last 25 years we've had more immigration than the past, 2000 years ! I grew up in the East End of Londn. Working class family, lived in a dockers house with the toilet in the back yard. I am now 54. The area that I came from was poor, but upon reflection in later life, it wasn't poor, it was rich. Every person there had a standard, every house clean, every person with a few rough exceptions was upright,decent and had a sense of right and wrong and common decency. That same area ow represents a third world shithole. The Dr's surgeries look like something from a documentary about Karachi or the Congo, with specific diseases and cultural practices to match. The Borough I originally came from has the highest rate of T.B. outside the sub continent. Has been like that for 30 years. The authorities tell us " diversity is our strength " at ground level it doesn't look like that !
In America, 90% of the PRICE of a new home is the total cost (land, labor, materials, license/code, marketing) to make and sell it. So either home prices are the result of upstream costs, or home prices are driving prices of materials and labor etc. up throughout the economy. That being said, the house you buy today is not the same house that your parents bought in 1975, at least across the country so you can't use straight up home prices to gauge inflation.
In the US they can build houses because they haven't hung themselves with enviromental laws. I get that the enviroment is important but to slowly make it impossible for everyone to live in a house also seems like a bit of an issue. Adding ofc to the reasoning made in this video.
@@davidworthington4023 When I bought my house for 360K 15 years ago, I could have bought a .33 acre plot for 30K but not with proper zoning. The actual house was built for 160 K total and the zoned .33 acre plot was bought for 40K One thing, homes had to be built within about an hour of a city for people to commute, making most land useless for housing, but rapid transport and online jobs are making more distant regions better for building homes. Or conversely we may get jobs located 120 miles by pneumatic train away from the city where people live. 16 years ago you could get a home loan in Colorado for 5x your annual income. People were tearing down apartment complexes for insurance. We've had about 600% home price increase in 30 years, but again, they aren't the same homes. Codes and materials change.
This demand argument is good but the other part of the equation is the currency devaluation. In Australia the money supply increased maybe 30% last few years. All that money goes somewhere- housing is one of the main assets where the money flows to.
What's Starmer got to do with this? You had 14 years Tory rule that professed anti immigration while leading Brexit to "reduce" immigration when really if was for other reasons.
It's not so much that home sellers asked for more because dual incomes existed, it's more that dual income buyers were less thrifty and bought more than they normally would. This put more of a demand on larger homes and those in nicer areas. It also meant they could pay closer to the asking price to ensure they got the home they wanted. Once this started to trend, prices for larger and also nicer area homes could demand higher prices, increasing the gap between the lower and higher cost homes. This gap continued to widen to where it became essential to have a dual income to get into a regular home, which is previously what could be afforded by a single income. Buyers got greedy and sellers let them be so.
@ML6103 Fiat currency is a currency not tied to any commodity, it allows the government to print unlimited amounts and causes huge amounts of inflation
@@quillo2747 thank you. I do understand what fiat currency is. I'm yet to see any solid evidence that we'd be much better off without it (is what I meant by my reply)
@@ML6103 The notion is that the fiat system, promotes currency inflation (aka printing money) which is bad in the long run for all of us. Look at the debt of the US before and after they droped the gold standard, crazy.
I am surprised that little seems to be spoken about the Great Housing Gold Rush during Covid.... I was trying to buy a place to live from December 2019- July 2022. it was crazy, poaces beijg sold within 48 hiuurs was a regular thing .. prices pretty much went up 40% over thise 2.5 years... I went from looking at 2 bed houses to one bed flats, 😢 where i was looking (South Coast).
Im 47 and when i was 16 in 1994 my mother decided to work full time and her entire income went to paying off our house as my dad also worked full time and they managed to pay off their house in less than 4 years. Most of my friends mums at that time didnt work at all or just had small part time jobs and everyone still lived in nice large houses with backyards and usually 2 cars.
Sounds like my childhood (I’m 46). There was a distinctly “ladies who lunch” vibe about where I lived, because the mums had so much spare time. In fact my own school would casually assume the mothers of its pupils would always be on hand to turn up in their cars and ferry us kids back and forth to various extra curricular activities. Sounds really sexist, I know, but most of the time the school was right. Most of the mums WERE available to do this. I doubt things are the same today….
@@IbnShahidI lived just outside of New York City Rockland County I'm 43 and two of my best friend's dad's worked at grocery stores and bought nice houses had decent cars and went on vacations🎉 they would sometimes work part-time and sometimes the wives would have part-time jobs when the kids got older🎉 and I remember the wives always made their lunches
Society is destroying families due to unchecked government greed.
It was nothing like this in the early 1990s for most people. Mortgage Interest rates were still double digit rates at the beginning of the decade. Non-food items like TV's and stereos and other electronics were extremely expensive because it was still manufactured by people. Same goes for appliances like refrigerators and stoves.
But don't worry. Just like Millennials and GenZ were dismissive of inflation because they hadn't experience it yet, they will soon experience with consumer products once Trumps Tariffs kick in.
@@PhilMoskowitzso then genz won't have stuff, or homes, and haven't had time to build assets. Got it. Toss in AI automation to knock out young carrier gaps and we're setting up a great future.
I've been thinking for years about this kind of "life inflation". You have to have two incomes now to live the life one income bought before the 80s. You have to have a degree or similar now to have almost any chance of getting a job, in the 80s and before you didn't. A gym fit body now, or at least the aspiration of one, is the default standard, 25 years ago the gym and body building was a niche interest.
In every single aspect of life people have to do much more and work much harder to live the same life people did a generation or two ago.
Absolutely. My father was born in 1940 and he started his teaching career at the age of 19 with just a year's training under his belt. Nowadays you'd need 'QTS', gained from a degree as a minimum but typically achieved by people when they are much older. This is just one example but it was like that for that whole generation. We had full employment and a manufacturing industry at that time. The posh term is 'credential inflation', otherwise know as raising the entry bar. People aren't any smarter than they were then, that's basically, a lie. Higher education is another ponzy scheme, like the property market, in fact like the entire debt-fuelled economy. People didn't waste years at 'uni' just to be able to get a crappy job which doesn't meet living costs, my father was in the minority as most people left school at 15 and most of them were on on the property ladder, quite seriously on it, by the time they were in their early to mid 20s.
@@billyliar1614 Smoking on the job and drinks on the lunch break weren't out of place either. Now you can't afford to smoke, can't smoke in the pub, and can't even afford to go to the pub.
This country is a disgrace.
Yes, but you're also allowed to be infinitely more stupid, lazy, and weird now than you were forty years ago
We are also far more affected by inflammation increasing agents and endocrine system disrupting chemicals. This messes with our brains. Put being glued to an ipad since age 3 on top of that.
See Japan or Korea for where this inevitably leads… 😢
I’m in Ohio and the housing market here over the last 7-8 years is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Homes that were bought for $130K in 2015 are now being sold for $590k. I’m talking about tiny, disgusting, poorly built 950 square foot shit boxes in quiet mediocre neighbourhoods. Then you’ve got Better, average sized homes in nicer neighbourhoods that were $300K+ 10 years ago selling for $750k+ now. Wild times.
Home prices will come down eventually, but for now; get your money (as much as you can) out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. The new mortgage rates are crazy, add to that the recession and the fact that mortgage guidelines are getting more difficult.
Home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes.If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now its best you seek an independent advisor who knows about the financial markets.
@@PatrickLloyd- This sounds great. Is there a way I could connect with an advisor you recommend? I would really appreciate it.
My CFA SOPHIE LYNN CARRABUS a renowned figure in her line of work. I recommend researching her credentials further... She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market..
Australia was the testing ground for this. All of the world will be like Australia in 5-10 years.
I don't always agree with Mr. Sutherland but I always enjoy his train of thought. He always manages to show two sides of the same coin and allows you to choose which side you want to plant your flag on.
Why would you plant your flag on one of two positions? The world is three-dimensional.
I like this guy just because of how he is sitting on the chair lol
lol
proper british posture
There’s a bloke like this guy in every pub in the UK explaining how the world works.
100% lol
Which one The fatty or the beanstalk they're both sitting weird?
I think what he’s trying to say is this: inflation is a result, in part, of demand. I.e.: the price of things is mediated by what people are able to pay. If things are priced too highly relative to the amount of money people have they won’t sell; if people get more money, the price of things will go up, because sellers are now able to sell for more without affecting demand.
In a world where households only had one earner, this kept the price of property at a certain level. When women entered the workforce suddenly household incomes doubled, thus households had more money to spend on property - thus inflation in house prices. Effectively, people ended up doing twice as much work to end up living in the same conditions as they started in.
That's his claim, indeed it does have a degree of validity however it is relatively a minor factor in the altering of the property market, far greater significance is caused by the effective removal of social housing, the restrictions on supply through planning and the increased commodification of homes as an asset class with highly favourable taxation policy.
Another far greater effect on the supply and demand ratio is demographic and the huge increase in single person households not even hinted at.
He seems utterly oblivious to the static caravan market in the UK and just how exploitative it is of the tennant in relation to the land owner.
Yes that’s demand pull inflation but for many years inflation has been largely been driven by supplier greed
The UK property price boom has been the result of almost a perfect storm in a way. Two incomes, reduction of social housing, restriction of supply and massive reduction in interest rates.
@@maximuspennyweathershould not have had right to buy and selling of council owned housing.
That's analog to claiming it's not wet because it rained, but because water fell down from the sky.
"Demand exploded" is *exactly* the mechanism through which money dispersal translates into inflation. Look up "cantillon effect" if you are interested in the subject.
"Van life" is arguably evidence of this form of living making a resurgence, if simply by necessity.
All the van lifers you see are either already wealthy, becoming poor by choosing it, or influencers who only can do it because of RUclips/tiktoks
Vans are a depreciating asset that DOES break down, and the ones worth living in are six figures like a house once you've done the conversion
Check out all the “year round open holiday caravan park sites” that have people living there all year round with no alternative addresses.
Local Authorities are absolutely scared to death of enforcing the rules because it might mean housing list gets bigger so it’s a case of outta sight “site” outta mind.
I got this from a fella who worked for East Cheshire Council and then realised its nationwide.
Most of them are run by millionaire traveller families as well.
Meant to add the rules are unless the park is residential then they shouldn’t be there all year and need to be off site for 2 weeks.
Every owner should also have a valid alternative address and be paying council tax there etc.
no no, just be smart an creative to make money.
Henry Ford was not being altruistic. Mass production of cars was the end to fabrication, which meant you either worked for ford, or didn’t work at all as a mechanic. Add to that the amount of work labourers were tasked with, workers demanded more money because they couldn’t work anywhere else, since there was nothing left outside of ford. Ford also never hesitated when firing workers when markets worsened, which led to morale issues that still existed in car manufacturing plants in the west well into the 80s.
Toyota faced similar problems, but instead of letting everyone go, they decided to not only pay fair wages, but promised to fire only those workers deemed necessary to keep the automaker in the black, and THEN to not fire anyone, making sure that if you stayed, you were rewarded, and the longer you stayed, the better your pay was, and more learned you became, thus helping Toyota in the short and long term.
Everyone needs to read “the machine that changed the world” by Womack, Jones, and Ross.
Sounds like Gung Ho starring Michael Keaton.
Ford also had to offer raises to the mechanics, significant raises, because the task of making cars became joyless once you become a part of the assembly line. How many people these days work joyless lives that were made joyless and isolating because of tech advancements?
Thanks for your input and read recommendation! Mich appreciated!
Ford workers were offered a future that could be in any colour as long as it was black.
This is an interesting conversation but you can tell the guy lacks a lot of context. Mobile homes have a huge issue with price gouging of lot rents. The cost to move is prohibitively expensive for most people, and the things need to go somewhere so people end up stuck. Boats for power generation don’t work because the majority of the work of power production is anticipating and meeting demand. It would create periodic crises where communities would have to bid for energy without developing reliable production capacity for themselves. Price gouging would be inevitable. Interesting convo, but the solutions are just an exercise without any real analysis of the real factors involved.
And of course mobile homes halve in value over 3-5 years
So when accounting for depreciation of the asset it’s still cheaper to rent
Added to that banks don’t want to lend on assets that deprecate and can be moved, so you go from a situation in which someone needs £20k deposit and £600/month mortgage payment for a house to needing £80k up front which will dissolve into nothing a decade later
Scotland has already banned camping overnight in motorhomes in most places. England is getting there.
The motorhome industry is dying in the country and clearly Rory has no idea.
@@jackmetcalfe8542rent the mobile home, don’t own it !
I'm 2 generations away from my family carrying their water from a river, eating fruit one time during 6 months of the year, and having to carry firewood to school to heat the classroom.
I walk around with a super computer in my pocket.
Count your blessings, Praise God!
Yeah, we should all shut up and get an evening job to pay our slum-landlords their ridiculous rents so they can mince around in Range Rovers.
it is hard for us humans to not take things for granted. we do not see the luxury we live in as abstraction and reasoning is very hard if you do not know hunger or thirst
@@digitalradiohacker Awfully covetous, eh?
The average unemployed person today has a more comfortable life than nearly all Kings of England. All I hear is whining and jealousy.
Money is worth less, and everything costs more, but people aren't paid more, that's about it.
Oh and everything is taxed a lot more.
Hmm not really. Cos like he said, many other things are more affordable than they used to be. If what you said were true, then everything would be less affordable.
@ouessantpeaches6122 Something can go up in price but be more affordable, so long as it doesn't go up as much as inflation would dictate, for example: the cost to make batteries has gone down by 90% in the last decade. Can you honestly tell me you've noticed?
No tax as a percentage of the economy has gone up but not as much as one is led to believe historically low during the early 1990s a period of increased public borrowing but still averaging the mid 30s percentage point over the entirety of the decade, what has altered significantly however is on whom that tax burden falls, the UK tax system has become significantly less progressive over the last fifty years which has arguably driven inequality and asset price inflation relative to commodity price inflation, the commodification of property as an income generating asset class being a particularly egregious issue as shelter is such a fundamental to one's existence.
It's a closed loop. Someone, somewhere is hovering up the cash.
@@ouessantpeaches6122 wrong conclusion.
7:35 ‘I also own two small flats’. The problem isn’t that dual incomes have increased house prices, they are still around 3x salary. The problem is the second income can be used to buy a property to rent out. And once that property’s mortgage is being paid by the renter, you can go buy _another_ property. And unlike homes that get sold on as people upscale or downscale, these never return to the market. I’ve seen rental prices in one area double simply because all the properties are snapped up by three landlords.
Average UK house price = £282,000. Average UK salary = £35,000
8x
Possible solution: put a limit on the amount of houses/properties someone can own.
Renting out a house is scalping housing.
Not to mention corporations doing this in the hundreds, if not thousands
When I was on a single income of 35000 ater tax I had about £2200 Rent, bills, council tax, subsriptions, phone , travel ,food = 1900 So I have more disposible money on Benefits. Economy is broken badly when thats the case.
Brother what are you smoking? I'm on benefits right now and have NO disposable income. Do you really think you'd have more money to spend while on benefits? Bro...
Not all benefits are the same, I have a friend on benefits who has more disposable income than I do as someone working a specialist role.
@@adamaa39 there is no thinking involved mate. When working full time traveling to london and living alone i had less than £200 to spend on luxuries with UC I have about £250
Another issue which is never mentioned is that bedsits were outlawed. This was the cheapest tier of accomodation, often poor quality but at least it was better than sleeping outside.
As usual, any conversation about house prices comes down to the lack of a Land Value Tax. Had the UK managed to pass the LVT bill in 1905 this country would be vastly richer and more equal than it is today. But it was killed for the same reason we are unlikely to be able to fix it now, the rich who own the land will do anything to stop LVT.
what is LVT and why would it solve anything? thanks
How on Earth would an additional tax make housing cheaper? If our benevolent government wanted to make housing more affordable (which evidently they don't), they'd need to build more housing and/or reduce immigration, that's literally it.
@chrisdoel2778 just look it up. LVT would be a great equaliser. It'll never happen though :(😊
There are houses a mile from me worth over £1 million pounds that pay £165 a month in council tax, the only tax applicable to their property. That is ridiculous. It absolutely inflates housing, because it lets people sit on assets that have in some cases become worth 10x what they were purchased for without having to pay tax against that increased value, but being able to borrow against it or release equity. It lets them sit on property until it sells for a value they think it’s worth as well, while generating nothing productive for the economy
@@chrisdoel2778 The rationale is to tax the value of land independent of any improvements on it, which discourages land banking & hoarding by turning it into a financial liability instead of an asset & you'd see a lot of property currently held by financial speculators released to the market. This will then discourage market behaviours which arbitrarily drive land values up & discourage rent seeking on land alone.
It's hardly a panacea though, Australia has LVT & it's real estate is famously NOT cheap right now.
This first couple of minutes is spot on.
Ive been saying this since 1991 when i was the only pupil advocating for stay at home mum's in sixth form debate. Look at me now people..
Needless to say, I had the last laugh.
Needles to say ,
Well, the dad could have stayed home instead. That would have fixed the problem too
@@restlesscow2137 naturally.
@@restlesscow2137 Except that would destroy the family the other way, instead of financially, because women naturally cannot be attracted to men who stay home and do the feminine gender role.
In the long run the dull normal ordinary people always lose because they’re not capable of being exceptional or escaping from the trap. And all of society will crumble because working women want men who make at least 50% more than they do, which becomes statistically impossible hence the birth rate crashes and there are insufficient younger workers to keep the old age pensions funded. It’s now gotten to the point where if you lack mad homesteading skills you’re reduced to either living in a motor vehicle of some sort or escaping to afloat living on a sailboat or some sort of a houseboat. And again, dull normal people can’t hack it so they're screwed.
When we were getting our mortgage in the 1970s, it was based on 2.5 times the man's salary and half of his wife's.
That's probably because the wife had a higher likelihood of dropping out of the labour market, so that income was at higher risk to the lender
Is that 2.5x the man's salary PLUS (1/2)*2.5x the woman's salary? Or, is it 2.5x the man's salary PLUS 1/2 the woman's salary (i.e., 2.5 years worth or man's salary + 0.5 years worth of woman's salary)?
@@JohnDorian-j7x If the man's annual wage was £2000 and the woman's was £1000, then they could be lent £5500.
My mom was a Doctor
Well now in London it's 15 times the household income . It's BS
Thats exactly what happened. My dad was a bank manager and my mum a housewife, could afford a decent semi in oxford. No chance now. Women especially have been conned,and understandabky struggle to feel like tgey are succeeding in all parts of life.
Yes, the women were conned, because they wanted financial independence, ooooh woooo, how dare they look what they done!
This was obviously going to happen the moment women went into the workforce. Same situation with marriages and the family unit. No-one found a good solution to balance out that everyone wants women to have the same opportunities, but society wasn't and isn't set up to allow for it at all. So we steamed ahead anyway and here we are.
also, we have people with mobile housing already, the gypsies, and they're almost universally hated. And what kind of energy requirement that needs nuclear ends after 8 months ? What ?
To put the price gouging into context and how prices are artificially inflated above the rate of inflation. There’s houses near me that were built in the 1850’s for industrial revolution mill workers, the poorest people in society at the time, people who would not have the money to pay a lot for a house. Those same houses are now going for £250,000+ . There’s absolutely no way that when these houses were first built, the first occupants paid anywhere near that percentage of their salary. The cost of building the house must have been paid off by now several times over.
Yup. But shelter is an essential human need and the banks are willing to lend lend lend which keeps the housing market growing.
They would have been owned by private landlords
When those houses were originally built they were owned by the mills that constructed them, as well as the roads and other civic amenities - it was housing for workers, so if they stopped working for the mills they would have to leave. Employer-provided housing still exists today and can be anything from prefab aluminium dormitories to full detached houses too, It just stopped being standard after various scandals from the 1880s onwards where employers leveraged the risk of immediate homelessness to keep workers down, selling off these older developments as they aged and needed new investment for renovations, and then after WW2 when many government programs sought to make private home ownership wide accessible. It was those programs that actually started the ballooning and commodification of housing, since guaranteed credit simply inflates prices.
He talks about demand without talking about supply. In places where people actually want to live, e.g. London, Cambridge and Oxford, it's effectively impossible to meet the demand because of the restraints of the planning system.
That's true only for the big cities, but what for the rest of the country? Small towns get empty, still rents and house prices goes up, middle class can't own an house... something isn't working right
@@giacomonicoli5822
Cambridge?
I grew up around Scunthorpe and moved to Huntingdon for work. I often find myself on client sites in Cambridge and I think it is a complete SHITHOLE.
Think that through - I grew up around Scunthorpe for crying out loud.
I'd rather live in 70's Belfast than pothole "Greggs & Betfred" Cambridge.
After the recession, many home builders went out of business. That is the key ingredient.
I'm from Cambridge and I live there now. I'd agree with the shit hole comment. It's a rubbish city to live in - relatively few facilities (especially outside the centre) massive inequality which is only going to get worse as the government push science and tech business growth in the area. The science park has been here since the 70s, adjacent to the poorest area of the city. It's still the poorest area of the city and will only become worse and more science and tech companies continue to bring in more experienced, well paid roles that will drive house prices up, leaving the local population behind.
Two other big problems
- Interest rates have been too low, for too long. So buying larger and larger houses became affordable, at least in terms of a monthly payments. Housing then became an investment, with lots of people buying more than one house to rent in part because housing is the only thing to increase in value consistently relative to inflation... in part because interest rates are so low.
- Another problem is all the miracles he's talking about cost money and erode our incomes. Running water, power, internet, cable tv, streaming, car payments, cellphone plans all of these things cost money and we can't live without them but most of them didn't exist (or at least weren't very common) 100 years ago. Some like cellphones and internet only became ubiquitous in the past 2 decades and that's hundreds of dollars per household. So the cost of living a 'good' life has increased much faster relative to base salaries.
1) We should have a tax for city center apartments that are not in active use. Owner should either rent it or sell it, not use as a safe haven for your money or keep it empty for years on end.
2) We should forbid companies or investment companies from owning residential housing in cities (designated areas for residential housing)
3) Illegal immigrants should be housed in a tent with water, soup and bread. They can then return home or learn the local language, values, get a job and integrate. Not to be housed in city hotels and apartments on tax payer money
4) welfare customers should not be allowed to live unemployed near the city center for over 10 years. Either get a job or forced to move to a cheaper city as normal people do.
5) We need to start cutting the ridiculous red tape that adds on to the cost of new housing.
1) whole heartedly agree, or have the property apply an extra tax for being vacant (incentivise them to sell it)
2) companies and investment firms should be able to own apartment complexes or buildings, but not single detached or townhouses. They should aslo have a forced rental cap based on a government provided guideline.
3) Despite them being illegally in the country, they are still humans and deserve to be treated as such. We don't know their individual circumstances and shouldn't lump them all into one category without assessment of each. Should they be put into luxury hotels at the cost of taxpayers though? No. There needs to be a fair middle ground for both parties.
4) Again, this is entirely based on individual cases. However, for the few who do try and milk the system, there needs to be appropriate consequences.
5) Housing affordability has been spiraling out of control for more than 3 decades all over the world. It's going to take a lot more than cutting red tape to improve this.
This is also happening in nearly every part of the world too, not just the UK. Boomers have had it good and the rest of us are getting scraps.
In many local authority areas in the UK there is a penalty if you leave your property empty. You pay double local tax, and in some areas of Wales it's triple. Doesn't really do much to solve the housing shortage though. I think the government should pass a law to take over abandoned properties, which might work better.
3) put them up in hotels but for the first 5 years get them out in the local community cleaning it up, making it look nice or some other kind of community service
House prices keep going up due to bank and government money printing. People borrow excessively to buy a property because cash is getting devalued every year. People use property for a store of value rather than for it's utility. While money printing continues scarce assets will continue to go up. Buy Bitcoin and keep it for longer than 4 years you will thank your future self.
Problem is if you don't join and contribute to the problem you are left behind.
Supply and demand is the biggest factor, 8 million added to the population has made everything worse, and another 10 million expected by 2040 will see a city of tents, Britain is dead.
Evolution of capitalism
No. Evolution of immigration and import of cheap third world labour
@stannats2637 thanks to capitalism, never in the history of mankind have so many had so much.
@@Theother1089it's an interesting point considering how many of the largest technological advances in history were funded socially, but generally true.
@Nexus804 socially is too broad a term, for example, some people claim Scandinavia is socialist however it's wealth comes from being part of globalist capitalism.
It's impossible for any UK government to do anything seismic with housing. None of them can implement sweeping reform, even if they somehow were able to overrule local authorities, because you have a huge cohort of voters who own houses - or at least have large mortgages - and don't want to see them devalued. A party that promised to level off house prices, or worse - reduce them - to make them within the realms of mere mortals to buy, would be soundly voted out at the next election.
On top of this you have people who are quite happy to pull the ladder up behind them. People talk about wanting more houses built, but when they've got their own house they object to any being built nearby. It's no surprise people get more big C conservative as they get older, as their attitudes coalesce towards supporting "I'm alright Jack" policies and parties.
thank you.
What's occurring is completely predictable. The purchase of housing occurs in an unregulated capitalist market insofar as if you can purchase a property, there is no restriction on how many properties you can purchase. If you extrapolate an unregulated capitalist market to its logical endpoint, the end result is that one entity will eventually own the entire market. What you'll see is initially the smallest / poorest players in the market get priced out of it first, but over time bigger players will get eaten up. Eventually a point will come where one entity has so much dominance in a market they can use their market power to crush every other player in the market. This is what we're seeing in the housing market. People of low socio-economic status have been priced out of the housing market for quite a long time, but we're now starting to see the middle class get squeezed out of the property market. And it will only get worse until radical change occurs. Residential housing should only be available to buy to people who want to live in the house. If people want to be landlords and rent properties out for commercial gain, then only property designated as commercial should be available for that.
What you have described it exactly how the game MONOPOLY ends.
After playing it several times you understand the flaws of the system.
You will certainly lose if you decide not to exploit others and remain a caring and honest person.
I decided not to play anymore with my friends but in real life I remain a piece on the board.
Still renting in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
His point on two salaries is exact and I believe that all laws and legislation should be based on bachelors\ettes since for them it is simply impossible to own a house nowadays.
Married folks actually have more tax benefits, help from families and society itself.
That argument is being repeated all over the Internet. The problem is that it's not true. Corporations own about 1% of the total housing, not enough to have any significant impact on prices. The real problem is that building isn't keeping up with demand. I don't know about the UK, but in U.S. cities, which are largely controlled by Democrats, there are all kinds of zoning laws and regulations that make it difficult and expensive for builders to build, especially smaller houses that people could actually afford.
@@darylfoster7944 It's in the process of happening. An extrapolation is a predicted outcome based on the current data and trend line. In Australia there are people that own 100 houses and the rate they are purchasing more houses is increasing. If they are allowed to continue, they or their descendants will eventually get big enough where they will be a corporation.
That has literally never happened in a capitalist market. Monopolies only form on rare occasion and never last long except in government regulated markets.
@@docd2295 Yes it has. It's just not visually obvious. But companies are fixing prices and cooperating with each other to keep prices high essentially engaging in cartel behaviour. For example where I live, with Compulsory Third Party insurance on a motor vehicle , there are 5 companies that you can go with and guess what? They are all exactly the same price. It's happening more than you think. You just can't see it.
I love the way Rory thinks. Great interview, thank you.
So TLDR of his argument is:
- when working families have 2 salaries their disposable income grows
- all people need shelter/housing
- when you limit the supply of housing (mostly zoning/other regulations) the price of a house will rise, because it's an essential good
So the law of supply and demand. With limited supply for something essential the price would go up.
Basic game theory as well, the first ppl to go double income win, because they are affluent in the market. The later ones are screwed
Average house price Vs Av. Income has gone crazy.
Factory workers used to afford a nice house on 1 income. Now consultants & teachers can't afford a 1bed flat.
It's not a double income issue. It's the home ownership consolidation, and I would say feudalisation.
Renting keeps people poor because they can not build their own wealth by having property. Instead, they invest it all in third party.
both are relevant
For people who want to dive deeper into this phenomenon: there have been two books published on this subject that I can recommend: The Empty Raincoat by Charles Handy (1995) and Why Things Bite Back by Edward Tenner (1996). Love Rory for his flamboyant and razor sharp story telling. His videos always feel too short.
The absolutely massive increase in production and therefore wealth gathered at the top, as usual.
Three points that I would like to make. First, forty years ago the largest element in monthly mortgage payments was to cover the interest which was typically 15 per cent. The capital element was more modest, and therefore so were house prices. Now, and for nearly 20 years the interest element has been much smaller than the capital element as a result of, especially since 2008, extremely low interest rates. Second, the single hospital consultant in my area (Cumbria) earns much more EACH YEAR than the average house price. How therefore does the gentleman's argument stand up? it only does so if one lives in an area where house prices are high. That is not the case for much of the country, although for the London area and the southeast, as well as in regional large city centres and suburbs (but not always in towns within one hour's commuting distance) it is. London is a special case, partly because of large influxes of overseas-derived capital.
Third, even forty years ago buying a [property was a struggle for young people. Without help from relatives, one had to fill a flat or house with paying flatmates, sleep for years on the sofa in the communal living room oneself, work in two or three jobs for 100 hours a week for years and to forego holidays and cars (and indeed, do all of the above). One suspects that many in the younger generation are not prepared to do thus. I will not say if that is good or bad but it is probably a reality of life that many overlook when they tut-tut about the UK housing situation.In the wider context and perspective, people should at least try to focus on making something of their situation rather than wallow in professional victimhood. Vicarious professional victimhood is worse still, and nauseating to witness.
The next step to this is that no one is having children. Childless is the next advantage that will be zero sum as well in the end
And that seems to be the goal...
In my country, a small condominium apartment costs well over a million, and there is a legal minimum of 25% downpayment. As a 30 year-old, I had to fork out nearly half a million upfront just to afford the downpayment and taxes on a small apartment that I just bought.
I was shocked that in the US you only need a 3.5% downpayment. But the fact that this is still unaffordable for many means that there are cost of living issues aside from housing prices (and rent itself is often mentioned as one). For those who have parents who actually own their own home, count yourself lucky and consider moving back in. The rent you save can afford you the downpayment in a couple of years.
There's so much more involved than dual income etc. We need to understand why in certain parts of the world owning your home is important and in others it isn't. For example, why does almost half of the people in most EU countries rent? Why are people in the UK so obsessed with owning their own home? etc. As for house prices in the UK, a big part is all the regulations to get land freed up for development. As soon as a new housing estate starts to pop up, they have no problem selling all the houses. The only problem is the rate at which these new houses are popping up.
It largely started with Margaret Thatcher selling off council homes for a pittance to sitting tenants.
The big element, thankfully, Mr Sutherland understands is that Land is not Capital or a Product (including Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Winston Churchill, and J.M Keynes, to name a few heavyweights i.e. economics is Land (Rent), Production and Capital). It's unique as it cannot be created (product) and is not capital as its value is the rent it creates via scarcity and production value of fertility, place, and time. Land is the domain of Rentier Capitalism (ref; Brett Christophers, Thomas Piketty r>g, Mariana Mazzucato) that extracts wealth from the incomes of production, whilst adding no value to society, only to the rentier landlord, who does nothing but collect rent!
I have been saying the same thing, woman working ultimately pushed up asset prices and now it’s pretty much essential for them to work to afford a house.
Ban them from working, that'll fix your problem.
Thats a factor. But the big one is the loosening of commercial lending regulations, sustained periods of low interest rates, right to buy, help to buy and also the uncontrolled flood of foreign labour and capital flowing into the country in search of somewhere to live/ a safe bet to park their spare investment monies.
The housing market could be reigned in with sensible regulation and taxation. But too many people have their fingers in the pie to let meaningful change happen.
@@dallysinghson5569Taking away individual rights should never be the answer. Try again,
I look at my mam & dad’s life when I was growing up in the late 80’s / 90’s. My mam only worked part time as a dinner lady & my dad worked for a construction company. They had a very easy life, had a big house, raised two kids & got to retire fairly early. Fast forward to my existence, I’m divorced because my wife & I couldn’t afford children so split up. I work two jobs 7 days a week just to exist, if I worked only one job I’d lose my house probably in two months. We really are living through hard times. The only way out of my situation is winning the lottery or suicide, the latter is becoming more appealing by the day.
Spot on! Said this years ago!
I remember Comet ... loved browsing round the electrics of the day, gadgets. Still have a hifi I bought from Comet, just outside of Brum.
Oh la la!!!
So glad he isn’t a free market fundamentalist, can acknowledge its benefits and weaknesses
What’s wrong with a “free market fundamentalist”?
@@seanm3226 As he mentioned in the clip - it leads to a lot of asset hoarding as opposite to say investing in innovative businesses. Holding money in property, inflating property values.
@@seanm3226it's a zero sum game. The biggest company eats up all the smaller ones until it has a monopoly. It concentrates wealth at the very top of society. You end up with a multitudes of poor people and a tiny percentage at the very top of society who own most of the wealth.
@@seanm3226 Free market fundamentalists are neurotic people who are incapable of considering opposing points of view. They are just as bad as the communist types they are always complaining about.
Balance is the key to success in everything. There is truly a time and a place for everything.
@@JimmyTheGiantif you had an actually free market in housing there would be a LOT more of it and prices WAY lower. The restrictions on building due to zoning, “economic planning”, and rent control in many major cities is the reason prices grow faster than they should.
My dad bought a house 20 years ago near Bromley £217000. Sold it for £600000. He wouldn't be able to buy the same house now if he was in same position insane.
Not just land issues.
I remember when I worked at HPES they talked about ‘Total Addressable Wallets’ as in we knew the UK Gov had x to spend on IT contracts so we had to get as much as we could out of them including simply doubling the prices I’d worked out for my service.
Now the UK is offering grants of £7.5k for Heat Pumps so suddenly all installs costs £10k+
They costs a lot less in the Nordics where wages are higher and they need better installations!
Greed.
But the heat pumps in Norway are air to air, not air to water as in UK. The price of a2a system is apx 3-7k installed. They provide warm air, not warm water piped to radiators etc. They are also known as aircon! No gov subsidy for these.
@ I knew there would be an explanation and in another video someone mentioned these air-to-air pumps
This is awesome. I was arguing this point with friends, but I didn't have the eloquent British accent and told I was sexist lol. But yes, it is just economics. And the point cannot be understated about loss of discretionary time. People can't afford a house, because technically the median is having 2 adults working. The easiest way to fix this is to lower the percentage of income allowed for how big your mortgage can be by 25-50% of current. This effectively removes this problem, but you would crush property values.
Just a reminder if we want the benifits of the past we need to be open to the culture and attitudes of the past. Everyone talks about how wonderful it was living on a single income in a community who knew each other and a world where you always had sundays off and everything else but you very rarely hear people pointing out that none of those came from policy. Women typically left the workforce after they got married because thats what was socially expected and they would be seen as strange if they didn't. People knew each other because families didn't tend to move around very much and everyone largely went to the same social functions and cared about what they believed and what the people around them believed. Christmas, Easter and Sunday were sacrosanct because Christianity was completely dominant and people were willing to stand up for it.
There are countless other examples but we need to remember that while government can play a role it doesn't actually build a culture. We need to do that ourselves, and frankly the way people act today won't build anything.
Each town also had a half day closing of shops. Now we don’t even have shops!
@macsmiffy2197 another good point, when you feel a connection and duty to the people you live near you'll spend a little more to support them over huge corporations
Government can destroy a culture with its policies though , whether mass immigration, pushing sexual deviance or killing off viable industries like the coal miners. When a government represents global money and not the wishes of the demos , social cohesion is over.
I usually like him, but his analysis completely misses out the artifical constraints of the planning system (which was introduced specifically to constrain development), population growth without increased construction, and the movement of wealth from true investment to rentierism as a result of government overregulation of investment, alongside the legalisation of buy to let mortgages, Brown's pensions raid, availability of cheap credit since the early 2000s, artifically low interest rates (which are still historically low) and quantitative easing since 2008.
By population growth you mean mass migration
He never once mentioned low interest rates as a driver of property prices. Arguably the greatest single driver.
The word of the day is "commensurate".
Socialism doesn’t work because prices are eliminated once the means of production are owned by the government. Turns out we need prices to know what the people want and what they don’t want at any given time.
Naaah ,,,, conflate , impact.....no?
Issue with the moving houses every couple years (disentangling house from land) is schooling for children. IN the US at lease, location is very tightly associated with the community, and is one of the things that determines house values. No one wants to pull their kids out of school every 3 years (just ask base brats).
Not sure about his idea of nuclear on boats, feels like we'd be one big wave from creating Godzilla
Yeah it doesnt make sense. Like, the ship would have to plug in to the network, so a huge infrastricture is required for that only for it to be temporary ? Then what ? Ship sails away, infrastructure is pointless and what substitutes are there for the energy it used to produce. And while it sails ? What to do with the energy other than propel the ship. "Within reason" my ass with such ludicrous ideas
@@imrichkaslik4404 it's already in use in Russia, they move the ship to where they need extra energy resource. With the UK grid being much smaller, not sure how much it applies to us?
Say what you will about Godzilla, but he really does know how to drive down property prices
A lot of navy ships and submarines are already powered by nuclear reactors though. And it's fine.
@@imrichkaslik4404Have you ever heard of floating natural gas terminals that's exactly the same thing
It's strange that when I wes employed at a shcool in the 1970s we had a German student who had a brand new car and had holidays in exotic places whereas we had rough second hand bangers and looked forward to a holidy in spain, but, hardly anyone in Gemany owned houses and were all rentals with a rent cap.
A lot of people spend money on conveniences which keep them in the poor house. Do you need an iPhone 16 with an unlimited data plan? Do you need 4K streaming internet. Do you need six cable/satellite/streaming providers? Do you need to go out for Applebees, or could you bake a casserole and choke it down over the course of three days? Do you need a $65/month gym membership? Do you need to spend $60K plus interest and insurance on a truck that never hauls more than a couple 2x4s and several bags of groceries you could fit in the back of a Nissan Versa (or a 10 year old junker). Does your C-average kid HAVE to go to University and live on campus when they could just as well go to a community college and live at home for 10% of the price? People forget these aren't all necessities and wind up incurring gobs of debt to feel "normal" I guess. Things haven't changed as much as the number of ways you could spend money has.
A lot of truth in what you just wrote* (*he replied from his $100 phone) :)
Wife and I have 5 incomes.
2 jobs, 2 pensions, a part time job. Last year I said, "if you could just work 4 hours of OT each week it would help."
How ridiculous is that?
I’m only 46 and I can remember houses being £50k
Can't even put a deposit with that amount now...
@ the ex council houses on estates would’ve been about £30-32k at the same time .
The house i mentioned would be about £260k today .
@@Me-ri2ke its laughable.
Depends where .FWIW, my 2 bed, 3 storey terrace with garage , 2 smallish gardens oop North in 1982 was £9,250 .Now £110 , 000
Also, governments need to de-centralize industries away from urban areas. If companies can be spread across several smaller cities and towns, it'll go a long way in lowering property prices, urban migration, and urban congestion
Its supply and demand. Reduce the numbers coming in to the country.
Its simple.
But everyone is in on the game. Real estate brokers, bankers, politicians, the government, local councils, tradesmen, you name it.
Doesn't help that since 2000 the percentage of the UK population who are landlords has gone from 3% to 20%. If supply came more readily available properties wouldn't suddenly get far cheaper and you'd still have private equity firms and the wealthiest buying up the excess for their portfolios.
At the end of the day, the people you want to stop bringing into the country are not the ones who are buying up extortionately priced houses.
@@allrednow
They have to live somewhere. So they drive up the costs of rents which drives up the value.
It's supply and demand. Reduce the demand or build 600,000 units per year.
Not with our birth rate (lowest in recorded history)/ageing population issue it isn’t.
We have under-built enough houses for decades.
Perhaps it’s a Ponzi scheme to replace all the industry we have lost.
@@gregconway736 600,000 lol
He is indirectly referring to Land values being reduced to make housing affordable and not being held by leasehold landlordism, which raises the price of freehold land to match yields gained from production wealth (wages). How do we kill land values? 1) Rent control is sanctioned by a government freeze for 4 years, and then local rent controls are sanctioned by local authorities relating to local incomes. (it worked from 1915-1988) 2) A stop/go policy of controlled finance for mortgages to stop land inflation, with mortgages being the scarce factor, not land. Yes, it means waiting for a mortgage, but would you rather pay in today's money between £200,000 -£600,000 more for an average house that is purely the commodified element?
The conjecture of this is the end of state welfarism to asset welfarism which is great if you have an asset; if not, you're screwed, and that is now the old unskilled working class and newly educated middle (who don't have a bank of Mum and Dad, who are now the 10th biggest lender in the country for property).
It is absolutely not true that a consultant surgeon cannot afford to buy alone. They earn over £100k. Anyone earning £100k can afford to buy a house on their own.
Agreed. Load of rubbish
How much do you think a house in the south east costs?
@@henryrogers6790 Average house price in Maidstone is £350,000. Canterbury - £327,000. Someone on over £100,000 can afford to buy a house like that on their own.
Not in London. In any case, also depends on what you say "afford" is. If you want to be mortgaged to the hilt, then you can "afford" it on a single income of 100k.
@DorianGrayism In London agree. However where I live in Cheshire, you could drive a van for me, earn 35k+. Terrace 5 mins walk from me going for 100-115k. That's 1 man's wage x 3(ish)
The thing I can't figure out how to get around is the NIMBY issue that prevents building.
Wish Rory would run for prime minister
Didn't you hear, he is for the next election.
I’m with him about the impact of two income houses.
Not so close to his views around sailing nuclear power plants. If they are large enough to power something of substance, they would be too heavy to sail.
We have too many people, which drives up prices.
Banks make it too difficult to get a mortgage.
Saying that, all three of my kids are buying their own houses.
You mean migrants.
A quick search will show what happened to the disconnect around the 1970s between productivity and wages. Before then, they were in sync, but after they diverged as imported labour and technological development displaced the workforce. The system is heading towards being permanently broken and the need for a universal basic income becoming more evident.
Fair point
Supply and demand,a million people a year,swamping the system
Also a significant increase in single occupant houses due to the fall in marriage rates.
The UK population, which was estimated to be 67.0 million in mid-2021, is projected to rise by 6.6 million to 73.7 million over the next 15 years to mid-2036. We cannot simply build our way out of this issue.
He's such a wonderful guest
Van life in Sydney is saving myself $1000 AUD a week :) . Also get to live in the areas where only the mega rich can afford, lol.
Until the local constables knock on your window and want to arrest you for loitering or vagrancy.
I was literally asked to move on by cops or face arrest when I was homeless.
There's no way you are saving 4k rent per month lmao. You're actually not even saving 1 AUD, because there's a difference between saving and not spending.
I do like the idea of van life, but at this point you're just lying to yourself big time kek
I have to disagree ,the reason house prices have increased is due to supply and demand not because owners where taking advantage of couples having more income .
local authorities where building over 150.000 house per year averagely since 1947 right up until 79 when there was a massive decline to almost no local authorities building houses by the end of the decade.
can we remember who got elected in 79 ?
combined with privet firms the uk was building more than 300,000 house per year for over 25 years sometimes hitting 400,000 houses in a year
since 79 it dropped to 200,000 and below ,some years not hitting 130,000 all private
we have had a very sharp increase in population. demand his up supply is low , they know how much we have and the very people who we elected to look after our interests are invested in taking the most from us .
not one government since 79 has been overly concerned with what works best for all and what works best for a country's long term economic growth.
spending the rest of your life paying more than three times what something is worth to a f banker who created the money out of thin air and does f all for your money but say yes .
and then the government may take it from you in the end to pay to look after you .
imagine our booming economy if we where not giving half our income to pay for the roof over our heads
1980s: 4.2 times income
Current market: 8.8 times income.
in 80 just 12 % of your income ,
if it was that way now we would be eating out doing up kitchen etc
a stolen future .and who stole it ? the stupid fers who voted for her and her children .
Its not all about supply and demand in total as one house doesnt equal another. The premium houses close to population centres see significant price rises as double income households can pay more for them than a single income household. Single income affordable houses get pushed further and further away from population centres and facilities as cashed up double income households outbid each other in a race into debt which continues to inflate prices.
Another thing to consider if that you cant just build another 300k houses in London, New York, Paris, Sydney etc. Generally any new housing is being built in the fringes of these cities further and further away which means the people cant afford to pay as much for them which means that the builders cant make enough profit due to increased labour and material costs and environmental regulations and so those houses dont get built which leads to even more housing shortages.
When’s the book coming out?😂
In the current economic climate, a home is not the best investment. I've already sold my Boca Grande area home, but I want to invest roughly $200,000 in stocks since I've heard that even in challenging times, investors may turn a profit. Any excellent ideas for stocks?
The truth is that if you make the right picks, you could make killer riches very quickly, although such profit usually needs expertise, as in hedge funds or financial managers. I personally prefer the latter.
I agree. Based on personal experience working with an investment advlsor, I currently have $985k in a well-diversified portfollo that has experienced exponential growth. It's not only about having money to invest in st0cks, but you also need to be knowledgeable.
How can I participate in this? I sincerely aspire to establish a secure financlal future and am eager to participate. Who is the driving force behind your success?
Finding financial advisors like Annette Christine Conte who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
Thank you for the information. I conducted my own research on google and your advisor appears to be highly skilled and knowledgeable. I've sent her an email and arranged a phone call.
Changed jobs from doorman at clubs to night work at a hospital during covid. Given the amenities at work and the increasing rent for a shoebox I decided to live in a very simple work horse toyota. I work long shifts and can shower and eat at work I literally just needed a place to sleep. And as for girls a hotel and a simple diet and a physical job kept my options open for casual sex. I have spent since 2020 to now sleeping in my car and I have a property I am renting while I am working at the same time. I have almost paid off the mortgage on the 2 bedroom flat and the toyota was 900 quid and it's steaming right along. Soon when the flats paid off I'll pull my savings and liquidity of the flat into a family home and might even rent that out until that's paid off. You can pay your mortgage off these days but it takes sacrifice.
You should try to get Stiglitz on to discuss economics as a theology.
Bubble residential prices are not unique to the UK. Parts of the USA, Canada, NZ and Australia are experiencing the same inflated prices. What those countries have in common, apart from those conditions mentioned in the video, is long-term low interest rates. Cheap long-term money. Another driver is cash... buyers who benefited from the inflation can afford, after sale, to buy their next property for cash. Immigration is also a factor.
The rich own too much. That's literally it.
That's not it. I don't care how much money Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos has, as long as I have enough to live comfortably. I only need one nice house to be happy. I couldn't care less how many palaces the mega rich own.
You must have watched a different video.
@@christopherfleming7505 Learn about wealth inequality.
@@johno3456 Learn about wealth inequality and why the hoarding are superich destroying the middle class.
@Rosskles I honestly don't care about wealth inequality. There's nothing wrong with it in my view, because I'm not a communist. Why should I care if someone makes 100 or 1000 times more than I do? My only concern is that I have enough to provide for my family. Once you strip away the envy (a capital sin), all the talk about income inequality makes little sense.
I am concerned about JUSTICE, not inequality. It is not just to take from the rich in order to give to the poor. That is theft, wrapped up in technical sounding euphemisms. The rich have a moral obligation to help the poor, but it is not the government's job to redistribute wealth.
two incomes isnt the CAUSE of high housing prices but an effect.
housing prices went up entirely due to government restrictions on home construction causing a shortage of supply. they do it on purpose and sometimes even ADMIT that their regulations are intended to "maintain high property values". keeping high property values means they are ON PURPOSE putting in place regulations to drive up housing prices. so if the city planning commissions admit they are doing this, why do we refuse to blame them for it?
Due to the 15 million more people who came to the UK over the last 30 years who all need to live somewhere
I don't think 15 million people came in. It's not 15 million net migration. Kids were born here too
@@randomdaveUK 3 million people moved here in the last 4 years alone.
It's just under 10.5, actually.
In Germany as well. Something bought like 10 years ago now costs like twice or 3 times more. It's unbelievable.
Maybe the ability to buy a house on one blue collar incone was the weird part of our history.
....And keep a non woking wife , and two kds .( 1960's council estate). No car or foreign hols , but did OK on dad's wage . Why?The bills were minute , today it would cost more to collect them !
Agreed, somewhat. It feels like people get very quickly entitled to things that were unusual.
@@normanpearson8753there were hardly any bills. People didn't have things like fridges and freezers (in uk) til the 'Seventies. Many didn't have a phone or washing machine. These all add to the electric bill. Coal on the fire was the heating. Holiday was a week at the seaside on a caravan site, or none at all.
This is a revelation. I never thought of house inflation in this way but it does make complete sense. This guy talks lots of sense
I agree on most parts but the issue is actually land ownership and to a lesser degree planning. Imagine if we had no massive private land owners. Everyone could afford easily land. It is possible
Not necessarily - depends where you live in the UK. London or SE or parts of South of England £100k income might get you enough borrowing for a 1 or maybe 2 bed flat.
I agree I’ve just bought my first house on £27k on my own
I earn 55k and can get a mortage of 260k with a 30k deposit
@@Ll-ij2jh27K for a flat? How?
@@silver4831 No sorry I paid £140,000 for my house and I earn 27k though you can buy flats for around £40k where I live, I live in West Yorkshire and house prices up north and vastly different to down south
@Ll-ij2jh Wild. Down south flats are 100k plus and our wages are no higher.
Look at Japan they have two wage households but apart from in Tokyo falling house prices for decades . It’s immigration that has driven up house prices , supply and demand
I see what you're getting at, but migrants aren't the root cause. Migration is a constant across the world throughout history. I'd suggest that it's because of migration that we don't have the same problems of aging population. There are a variety of pressures that must be relieved to reduce the housing crisis.
@@Maxibo234 migration is making it hard for young couples to find somewhere to start a family . i know multiple couples living in vans or caravans deferring having children . so what you think is helping is causing low birth rate
people live in london to network and gain clout from those relationships in their industry that allows them to improve profit margins and power and influence that keep their opportunities optimised. once they have those they move out.
Why is life like this? Why can we never get the balance right? Why are the people in charge greedy psychopaths?
Because you're attracted to and vote for them.
"We gotta be talking about taxes. Taxes, taxes, taxes." -Rutger Bregman
Any convsersation about this that doesnt mention thatcher's disastrous right-to-buy policy is ludicrous
It has definitely had negative effects, but we aren't looking at a concentrated issue in the social housing sector.
Immigration is the key driving factor that so many are incentivised to pretend doesn't exist.
@Atamanxxxvii immigration has an impact, but it's overall effect is negligible.
It's bizarre for you to say that we "pretend it doesn't exist", when basically that's all the media goes on about - and basically the entirety of the conservative party basically runs on anti-immigration as a single issue.
In fact, I'd go as far to say that anti-immigration is the dominant political issue in modern politics.
Regardless, the idea that our housing crisis is due to immigration is ludicrous. Immigrants don't own houses in this country, and they certainly weren't the reason why we stopped building houses.
Most of the UK land is either owned by the monarch or by wealthy landlords.
Thatcher literally passed a bill stopping councils from building new properties.
And your response to that is to look at poor brown people seeking economic opportunity? Should we control immigration? Yes. Is it the reason nobody can buy a house without going into immense debt? Not even close.
We have in the UK, a conservative figure of £70 million population, probably nearer 80. All on a land mass that even the most optimistic view point should really allow for is 40, 45 million. 52% of the population are in receipt ofso.e sort of benefits from the social security system. In the last 25 years we've had more immigration than the past, 2000 years ! I grew up in the East End of Londn. Working class family, lived in a dockers house with the toilet in the back yard. I am now 54. The area that I came from was poor, but upon reflection in later life, it wasn't poor, it was rich. Every person there had a standard, every house clean, every person with a few rough exceptions was upright,decent and had a sense of right and wrong and common decency.
That same area ow represents a third world shithole. The Dr's surgeries look like something from a documentary about Karachi or the Congo, with specific diseases and cultural practices to match. The Borough I originally came from has the highest rate of T.B. outside the sub continent. Has been like that for 30 years. The authorities tell us " diversity is our strength " at ground level it doesn't look like that !
In America, 90% of the PRICE of a new home is the total cost (land, labor, materials, license/code, marketing) to make and sell it. So either home prices are the result of upstream costs, or home prices are driving prices of materials and labor etc. up throughout the economy. That being said, the house you buy today is not the same house that your parents bought in 1975, at least across the country so you can't use straight up home prices to gauge inflation.
In the US they can build houses because they haven't hung themselves with enviromental laws. I get that the enviroment is important but to slowly make it impossible for everyone to live in a house also seems like a bit of an issue. Adding ofc to the reasoning made in this video.
The key inclusion there is LAND. It's not housing that is price gouged to the moon but the price of the land.
@@davidworthington4023 When I bought my house for 360K 15 years ago, I could have bought a .33 acre plot for 30K but not with proper zoning. The actual house was built for 160 K total and the zoned .33 acre plot was bought for 40K
One thing, homes had to be built within about an hour of a city for people to commute, making most land useless for housing, but rapid transport and online jobs are making more distant regions better for building homes. Or conversely we may get jobs located 120 miles by pneumatic train away from the city where people live.
16 years ago you could get a home loan in Colorado for 5x your annual income. People were tearing down apartment complexes for insurance. We've had about 600% home price increase in 30 years, but again, they aren't the same homes. Codes and materials change.
This demand argument is good but the other part of the equation is the currency devaluation. In Australia the money supply increased maybe 30% last few years. All that money goes somewhere- housing is one of the main assets where the money flows to.
We brought 10 million immigrants here in 20 years. Fuck me it's not complicated!
Stop speaking the obvious. Comrade Starmer doesn’t like it
What's Starmer got to do with this? You had 14 years Tory rule that professed anti immigration while leading Brexit to "reduce" immigration when really if was for other reasons.
It's not so much that home sellers asked for more because dual incomes existed, it's more that dual income buyers were less thrifty and bought more than they normally would. This put more of a demand on larger homes and those in nicer areas. It also meant they could pay closer to the asking price to ensure they got the home they wanted.
Once this started to trend, prices for larger and also nicer area homes could demand higher prices, increasing the gap between the lower and higher cost homes. This gap continued to widen to where it became essential to have a dual income to get into a regular home, which is previously what could be afforded by a single income.
Buyers got greedy and sellers let them be so.
Houses won’t ever get cheaper. Tradesmen are well paid nowadays, lumber will stay expensive and land is scarce due to immigration.
And with both parents working, who is playing with their kids or cooking good food, etc?
personally I think its mostly down to having fiat money
Oh you do personally, do you? Wow. Look! You've got an opinion that you haven't even bothered to explain. Wooow 🤦
YT is the worst
Wow, haven't seen a crypto idealogue in a while.
@ML6103 Fiat currency is a currency not tied to any commodity, it allows the government to print unlimited amounts and causes huge amounts of inflation
@@quillo2747 thank you. I do understand what fiat currency is. I'm yet to see any solid evidence that we'd be much better off without it (is what I meant by my reply)
@@ML6103 The notion is that the fiat system, promotes currency inflation (aka printing money) which is bad in the long run for all of us. Look at the debt of the US before and after they droped the gold standard, crazy.
I am surprised that little seems to be spoken about the Great Housing Gold Rush during Covid....
I was trying to buy a place to live from December 2019- July 2022.
it was crazy, poaces beijg sold within 48 hiuurs was a regular thing .. prices pretty much went up 40% over thise 2.5 years...
I went from looking at 2 bed houses to one bed flats, 😢 where i was looking (South Coast).
There are 10 million more people in the uk than there were 30 years ago, and we've built nowhere near enough houses.
Go to the Midwest you can buy a house for Pennie’s on the dollar. Investors are starting to buy and hold in Cleveland and Detroit
Nuclear power plants on ships? Not owning the land your home is on (called LEASEHOLD!)? This man is a total buffoon!
I dont think it was a serious suggestion but rather a light-hearted example of how making things mobile can be beneficial, in general.
Rory promoting vanlife is a plot twist I didn’t see coming 😂
he cudnt even fit in a van.
And yet he owns flats (and what else?). Take everything he said with a pinch of salt. He is a good self-promoter.
@ well, I mean if you’re wealthy you’re part of the owning class, but he’s saying that if you’re not then vanlife’s not a bad way to go