Prices are too high. With rates not subsidised in ’24 and mortgage still high , currently seeking alternatives to maximize savings without an RV move or taking a loan. I’m seriously contemplating the latter.
If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone wants to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.
You're not doing anything wrong; you simply lack the expertise necessary to make money in a bad market. In these difficult circumstances, only really skilled experts who witnessed the 2008 financial crisis can expect to generate a large wage.
Sophie Lynn Carrabus is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
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
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.
@@BeardyAnton That's a result of exactly what he's talking about. The standards become too high, so more and more people don't even try, and that destroys norms.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
you are correct, I'm retired, a friend of mine who is also retired lives in a 4 bed detached bungalow in the best part of town and only pays £8 a month council tax because he qualifies for pension credits. I receive a private pension combined with my state pension and pay £210 month council tax on a ex 2 bed council flat. To me that doesn't seem right.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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).
@@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.
Buying a house has never been easy. My dad worked for two and mom stayed at home for the kids. No ski or city trips, home cooked food, no expensive phones, latte machiato to look cool in the street etc... Nowadays they spend everything they earn on things they do not need. People with a goal in life still can have that house but like old days, you will have to put the hours in it or the less popular job.
Private Equity is determined to gobble up all the Mobile Home (trailer parks) and either develop the land as single family higher end housing or jack the price and squeeze the affordable housing for double or triple the rates.
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.
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.
house prices are high because they are set by roughly 20x yearly rental returns - for a 5% yoy roi. rental prices are high because of the town & country planning act making it incredibly arduous to build anything, resulting in a shortage of about 4 MILLION homes across the UK. the "dual income" fallacy was true for a short period before buy to let mortgages became available. nowadays house prices are all based on rental prices, not salary affordability. everything is downstream of rental prices, which are priced based on occupancy rates (e.g. a 97% occupancy results in multiple people BIDDING for the same rental property), and occupancy rates are based on how many houses there are versus how many tenants. we need to BUILLDDDDDDD
It's a dirty scam between (government, builders, and organizations like NAR) at least in the US. Government wants taxes, NAR wants high commission, and builders want higher return. If government actually parceled the land properly and didn't allow lobbyists to push mega-homes to hike prices; then we wouldn't be in this mess. It all comes back to stopping the lobbyism.
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.
It's very simple. Wage growth has not kept up with productivity gains. The benefits of productivity gain and free trade (globalization) have gone primarily to large corporations and the capitalist class (the very wealthy). Households became double income _because_ of stagnating wages. It's the same story for consumer debt and now working multiple jobs, they are symptoms of the root cause.
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.
I grew up in a single income household, and it was the same for most of my friends. Me and my wife make a lot more than what i dad ever did and yet we can save money anywhere close to what my parents did. The increase in workers, when more women came into the job market, in creased the price of living and decreased peoples pay, as now there is more workers and so companies and pay less.
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
I have Phd students not be able to hardly maintain a life on 96k$ a year and not qualify for the average home or tiny apartment in Vegas. Now it’s possible if you have no car payment, dodge student loans, and your parents loan you the 80k$ down payment required. If not you’ll be on the slippery slope of treading water.
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.
This is simply a re-interpretation of Supply and Demand for house ownership ... it is something many people have known for some time. I applaud the simple description here - because sadly it needs to be re stated and understood. Some argue a solution might be the creation of single income houses or policies which enable single income lifestyles ... but there will always be an advantage to a couple who elect to trade that 35 discretionary time for an increase in income. ..so the only other answer ... public owned housing.
The reason housing is expensive is not because of two income households, it is because of over regulation and lack of building. There are huge fees and costs and red tape to simply get something built that there never used to be. Houses are arguably built much better and safer but there is always a trade off and that comes down to cost. Supply cannot keep up with demand. And if someone is making a profit and doing and adding supply most governments are quick to swoop in and demand a greater share.
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 .
If you think really hard about this, you will realize the main cause it's private central banking and usery. Define the system, get sound money (gold, silver, monero).
My thought on this that house prices and rents should be part of the government’s calculation for the rate of inflation. This should put a brake on people buying properties for investment purposes and also provide a simple method to control ever increasing rental costs. If inflation is tagged at 2.5% for instance then property costs would not have been allowed to rise in the way they have in the last 20 years. I might be wrong but it might help stop speculation in the property market.
I think you’re wrong… vast of properties aren’t investment properties and their value isn’t linked to the rent it can earn.. houses value massively more governed wages growth and interest rates
The problem with his argumentation is that the two household income was a factor maybe 50 years ago. Now everybody in family have two household income. It's not a factor for rise the prices anymore. The new government housing programs, higher taxation, regulation are factors now fir It.
The seller can only demand a higher price for the home if the supply is constrained. Sellers of electronics can't demand more due to dual income families because the competition will add supply. Electronics producers aren't egalitarians, they are profit seeking capitalists. The in park mobile homes in Malibu sell for over $1,000,000 each. Just down the coast from that Malibu mobile home park is Santa Monica. In Santa Monica the city is building apartments for the homeless on city owned land and it is costing almost $1,000,000 per unit WiTHOUT COUNTING THE VALUE OF THE LAND. In the USA the cost of construction increases at twice the CPI inflation rate pushing median home price further from median income. Housing isn't finite without government interference with land use and property rights.
Two incomes is part of the story but land zoning / building regulations is the biggest driving factor. In all Western countries. Take London. Single family homes were most affordable from 1919 to 1939. When the population went from 7.3M to 8.6M. And home ownership rates trebled. Thats when Metroland was built. Then in 1947 very restrictive Green Belt planning laws were passed but as the population of London fell from 8.5M to a low of 6.6M in the early 1980's there was no strong upward demand pressure on London property prices. But since then, especially in the last 20 years the population has gone from 7m to almost 9M with little new residential building apart from mid-rise / high-rise rabbit hutches. So guess which way property prices have gone. Especially for any residential property that is not a rabbit hutch. And as goes London so goes the whole SE of England due to the spillover effect. Same story in high cost cities in the US like San Francisco. A moderate property cost city until the 1970's when strict anti-growth zoning laws started kicking in. Again declining city population for a few decades hid the effect but once the city population started going up again in the 1990's property prices exploded and despite a few property crashes are now 300%+ higher in real terms. Whenever I heard people complaining about very high property prices I tell them if you want 1965 level property prices you need 1965 style zoning and building regulations. You can have pretty. You can have affordable. You cannot have both. As true for London as it is in the US. Its no accident that the most affordable cities in the US to buy homes all have the least restrictive zoning and building regulations. They aint pretty but ordinary people on average incomes can actually afford to live in them.
Surprised they didn't mention the most important issue in Housing (and everything) that determined the value , the law of supply and demand. More population , more demand of Housing, then it becomes more expensive. Unless we destroy the green belt and build smaller and crowded Housing, but do we want that ?
It's complete nonsense that single people with well paid jobs can't afford a house. What he means is they can't buy the house they want. Just because I can't afford a Bugatti doesn't mean I can't afford a car. That's what we've arrived at today, the tremendous entitlement of people who believe that if they can't afford the very best of what's on offer, and afford it NOW, then there's a problem and someone else is to blame.
Sticking two caravans together £80k x 2 = £160k you can certainly buy a house better than two caravans in Leeds/ the north for that. Odd point to make…
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.
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.
People don’t want to do the hard work, blood and guts approach is not there anymore, everyone wants to take 2-4 vacations a year and live in a bigger house than their parents. Everyone wants to live in London, Paris, NY, LA, but if you move to Kansas you actually will get a 2200 sq.ft 3 bd, 2 baths for less than £240,000.
I’ve benefited from the ‘ increase in property’, but in reality, the prices have virtually stood still compared to inflation. It’s the value of money that has diminished. When a government prints money or takes it out of circulation ( prints less), it changes inflation ( this isn’t the only factor though). If more money is printed, it is devalued and it raids bank accounts, pension bonds etc without people realising. They become poorer then complain about ‘the cost of living’. Assets ( shares, property) are a hedge against inflation, so it’s foolish to blame property owners for not being as affected against inflation.
I guess these guys don’t want to sully their images by treading towards the grubby truth. What is it? Well, over 10 million people living here who were not born here. That’s a hell of a lot of people. Housebuilding has not met the increase in demand. It’s economics 101. Demand exceeds supply, result prices rise.
Houses are expensive because that's where most folk store their wealth which means most wealth is stored in houses which means houses attract all the inflation 👍
I agree with the question about why ppl live in london. Please have someone tell the uk government that workers should a right to work remote and we all will live outside of london
Even with two “high” paying jobs, I’m still baffled how there are thousands of people buying these million dollar homes in London, New York, LA, and Vancouver. Who are these people?!?! I live in a place were my home is 25% of the price a home would cost in NY.
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
Interesting but the mobile home thing might produce many unwanted consequences such as shanty towns. A bit like Churchill, one of his Conservative colleagues, who I think , said that he had 10 ideas a day , 9 of which were bad, but one might be brilliant.
i think nowadays unless you have a salary greater than £35k you can't really have a good quality of life, one of the things that need looked at is the unjustified fuel increase as well as energy bills being up.
I own a full sized van just in case. Even working a full time job, I've become priced out of everything. I don't make enough to get a halfway decent place, and I make too much for the government subsidized places where I wouldn't want to live anyway. If it weren't for my parents, I would already be living in my van. My siblings have spouses who work and they're just barely scraping by, even with no children.
Been saying this for years, doesn’t have to be the mother to stay at home ie my wife does a more important job than me, and gets paid roughly the same. Added to the financial cost, you could argue there a community cost too, nobody at home during the day, nobody hardly knows their neighbours etc
How do we get either a massive, sustained rise in average wages (so people can afford housing and having a family) or massive, sustained reduction in house prices (relative to average wages)?
On the latter, reduction of the property deficit (large building companies sit on land & don't build to maintain the monopoly pricing on current housing stock) & rent control. House prices adjust as supply & demand stabilise & RC anchors the market & informs the value of the asset.
I've been saying this for decades. Women's Lib, as it was called, essentially encourage/pushed almost all women into full-time work from post-education. Supply of money for housing went up so prices went up accordingly. Now we're all suffering, especially single people. The cruel irony is, most married women end up wanting to stop work some time after the second child anyway but now many families can't afford for that to happen. Sometimes chasing ideals doesn't actually make us happier.
....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 !
After the war many homes sprung up all around Canada that by today's standard would not be considered as good enough to buy. Simple and small. People lived simply and modestly and with much less than today. They didn't all own cars. They packed their lunches. They sewed their own clothes. They patched their jeans and put new heels on their old shoes. They required no credit cards and saved up for everything they wanted. Easy money fueled the rise in the cost of homes. Banks were very careful before. They even closed at 3pm to make sure you couldn't get in to take money out. Remember? I know some of you do. The rest are too young and that's why you are confused about why Canada sucks now. It can't be fixed either because to the overlords we are all just cattle easily controlled by the fences they put up. Too weak to fight back. It's over.
It’s supply and demand and a cultural problem. We just need to build more housing, either sacrifice the gardens and build flats or sacrifice the green belt. It’s as simple as that. But nobody wants to say it because it’s culturally unacceptable. People want to live in a house with a garden even in London. In most big cities like Paris or Madrid people live in flats. So you can’t build up because of hight restrictions and people preferring houses. What about building out? Doesn’t work, we have green belts around our cities. As a result of all these restrictions not enough houses are being built. Everything else is a symptom of that problem, two incomes, not enough affordable housing, too many immigrants, homelessness, etc.
When you consider jobs and work as a commodity as in a high demand for a job with low supply of those able to work it increases the value and therefore the wage of the job while low demand of the work and high supply of those able to work it decreases value and its wage, imagine having half the population going to work and the other half staying home, taking care of the kids for 100’s of years only to convince, in the span of 30-40 years, that homestead half to go out and work. What would that do to the value of work and therefore wages? No you know why we can no longer afford to live anymore.
The game is rigged, I own my house outright but with property taxes and insurance rising every year those two monthly expenses are now MORE than the mortgage payment i had on my first home...I offset that expense with rental income but still find it offensive.
Prices are too high. With rates not subsidised in ’24 and mortgage still high , currently seeking alternatives to maximize savings without an RV move or taking a loan. I’m seriously contemplating the latter.
If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone wants to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.
You're not doing anything wrong; you simply lack the expertise necessary to make money in a bad market. In these difficult circumstances, only really skilled experts who witnessed the 2008 financial crisis can expect to generate a large wage.
@@PatrickLloyd- this sounds considerable! think you know any advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation
Sophie Lynn Carrabus is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
Thanks for sharing. I searched for her name and found her website. I reviewed her credentials and did my research before contacting her. Thanks again.
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.
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
@@BeardyAnton That's a result of exactly what he's talking about. The standards become too high, so more and more people don't even try, and that destroys norms.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
you are correct, I'm retired, a friend of mine who is also retired lives in a 4 bed detached bungalow in the best part of town and only pays £8 a month council tax because he qualifies for pension credits. I receive a private pension combined with my state pension and pay £210 month council tax on a ex 2 bed council flat. To me that doesn't seem right.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
This first couple of minutes is spot on.
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.
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.
I love the way Rory thinks. Great interview, thank you.
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,
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I remember Comet ... loved browsing round the electrics of the day, gadgets. Still have a hifi I bought from Comet, just outside of Brum.
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
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.
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.
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 ?
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).
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.
Buying a house has never been easy. My dad worked for two and mom stayed at home for the kids. No ski or city trips, home cooked food, no expensive phones, latte machiato to look cool in the street etc...
Nowadays they spend everything they earn on things they do not need.
People with a goal in life still can have that house but like old days, you will have to put the hours in it or the less popular job.
Spot on! Said this years ago!
Private Equity is determined to gobble up all the Mobile Home (trailer parks) and either develop the land as single family higher end housing or jack the price and squeeze the affordable housing for double or triple the rates.
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
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.
house prices are high because they are set by roughly 20x yearly rental returns - for a 5% yoy roi.
rental prices are high because of the town & country planning act making it incredibly arduous to build anything, resulting in a shortage of about 4 MILLION homes across the UK.
the "dual income" fallacy was true for a short period before buy to let mortgages became available. nowadays house prices are all based on rental prices, not salary affordability.
everything is downstream of rental prices, which are priced based on occupancy rates (e.g. a 97% occupancy results in multiple people BIDDING for the same rental property), and occupancy rates are based on how many houses there are versus how many tenants.
we need to BUILLDDDDDDD
It's a dirty scam between (government, builders, and organizations like NAR) at least in the US.
Government wants taxes, NAR wants high commission, and builders want higher return. If government actually parceled the land properly and didn't allow lobbyists to push mega-homes to hike prices; then we wouldn't be in this mess.
It all comes back to stopping the lobbyism.
LVT means people who own more valuable land will pay more in tax than the farmers with less valuable land. Why would anyone be against it?
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) :)
"Mobile homes" is a misnomer. They are pre-fab homes brought in on wheels. Once in place, they almost never move again.
And the quality is crap.
It's very simple. Wage growth has not kept up with productivity gains. The benefits of productivity gain and free trade (globalization) have gone primarily to large corporations and the capitalist class (the very wealthy). Households became double income _because_ of stagnating wages. It's the same story for consumer debt and now working multiple jobs, they are symptoms of the root cause.
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
I grew up in a single income household, and it was the same for most of my friends. Me and my wife make a lot more than what i dad ever did and yet we can save money anywhere close to what my parents did. The increase in workers, when more women came into the job market, in creased the price of living and decreased peoples pay, as now there is more workers and so companies and pay less.
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.
I have Phd students not be able to hardly maintain a life on 96k$ a year and not qualify for the average home or tiny apartment in Vegas. Now it’s possible if you have no car payment, dodge student loans, and your parents loan you the 80k$ down payment required. If not you’ll be on the slippery slope of treading water.
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.
This is simply a re-interpretation of Supply and Demand for house ownership ... it is something many people have known for some time. I applaud the simple description here - because sadly it needs to be re stated and understood.
Some argue a solution might be the creation of single income houses or policies which enable single income lifestyles ... but there will always be an advantage to a couple who elect to trade that 35 discretionary time for an increase in income. ..so the only other answer ... public owned housing.
The reason housing is expensive is not because of two income households, it is because of over regulation and lack of building. There are huge fees and costs and red tape to simply get something built that there never used to be. Houses are arguably built much better and safer but there is always a trade off and that comes down to cost. Supply cannot keep up with demand. And if someone is making a profit and doing and adding supply most governments are quick to swoop in and demand a greater share.
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 .
What happened to Andy Serkis?😢
If you think really hard about this, you will realize the main cause it's private central banking and usery. Define the system, get sound money (gold, silver, monero).
My thought on this that house prices and rents should be part of the government’s calculation for the rate of inflation. This should put a brake on people buying properties for investment purposes and also provide a simple method to control ever increasing rental costs. If inflation is tagged at 2.5% for instance then property costs would not have been allowed to rise in the way they have in the last 20 years. I might be wrong but it might help stop speculation in the property market.
I think you’re wrong… vast of properties aren’t investment properties and their value isn’t linked to the rent it can earn.. houses value massively more governed wages growth and interest rates
@@philiphayton8261House prices detached from wage growth 4 decades ago.... its a combination of Bank lending, speculation and hording.
The problem with his argumentation is that the two household income was a factor maybe 50 years ago. Now everybody in family have two household income. It's not a factor for rise the prices anymore. The new government housing programs, higher taxation, regulation are factors now fir It.
The seller can only demand a higher price for the home if the supply is constrained. Sellers of electronics can't demand more due to dual income families because the competition will add supply. Electronics producers aren't egalitarians, they are profit seeking capitalists. The in park mobile homes in Malibu sell for over $1,000,000 each. Just down the coast from that Malibu mobile home park is Santa Monica. In Santa Monica the city is building apartments for the homeless on city owned land and it is costing almost $1,000,000 per unit WiTHOUT COUNTING THE VALUE OF THE LAND. In the USA the cost of construction increases at twice the CPI inflation rate pushing median home price further from median income. Housing isn't finite without government interference with land use and property rights.
What the solution? Plastic module house?
Two incomes is part of the story but land zoning / building regulations is the biggest driving factor. In all Western countries.
Take London. Single family homes were most affordable from 1919 to 1939. When the population went from 7.3M to 8.6M. And home ownership rates trebled. Thats when Metroland was built. Then in 1947 very restrictive Green Belt planning laws were passed but as the population of London fell from 8.5M to a low of 6.6M in the early 1980's there was no strong upward demand pressure on London property prices.
But since then, especially in the last 20 years the population has gone from 7m to almost 9M with little new residential building apart from mid-rise / high-rise rabbit hutches. So guess which way property prices have gone. Especially for any residential property that is not a rabbit hutch. And as goes London so goes the whole SE of England due to the spillover effect.
Same story in high cost cities in the US like San Francisco. A moderate property cost city until the 1970's when strict anti-growth zoning laws started kicking in. Again declining city population for a few decades hid the effect but once the city population started going up again in the 1990's property prices exploded and despite a few property crashes are now 300%+ higher in real terms. Whenever I heard people complaining about very high property prices I tell them if you want 1965 level property prices you need 1965 style zoning and building regulations.
You can have pretty. You can have affordable. You cannot have both. As true for London as it is in the US. Its no accident that the most affordable cities in the US to buy homes all have the least restrictive zoning and building regulations. They aint pretty but ordinary people on average incomes can actually afford to live in them.
Wish Rory would run for prime minister
Didn't you hear, he is for the next election.
Surprised they didn't mention the most important issue in Housing (and everything) that determined the value , the law of supply and demand.
More population , more demand of Housing, then it becomes more expensive.
Unless we destroy the green belt and build smaller and crowded Housing, but do we want that ?
It's complete nonsense that single people with well paid jobs can't afford a house. What he means is they can't buy the house they want. Just because I can't afford a Bugatti doesn't mean I can't afford a car. That's what we've arrived at today, the tremendous entitlement of people who believe that if they can't afford the very best of what's on offer, and afford it NOW, then there's a problem and someone else is to blame.
Sticking two caravans together £80k x 2 = £160k you can certainly buy a house better than two caravans in Leeds/ the north for that. Odd point to make…
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.
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.
People don’t want to do the hard work, blood and guts approach is not there anymore, everyone wants to take 2-4 vacations a year and live in a bigger house than their parents. Everyone wants to live in London, Paris, NY, LA, but if you move to Kansas you actually will get a 2200 sq.ft 3 bd, 2 baths for less than £240,000.
I’ve benefited from the ‘ increase in property’, but in reality, the prices have virtually stood still compared to inflation. It’s the value of money that has diminished. When a government prints money or takes it out of circulation ( prints less), it changes inflation ( this isn’t the only factor though). If more money is printed, it is devalued and it raids bank accounts, pension bonds etc without people realising. They become poorer then complain about ‘the cost of living’. Assets ( shares, property) are a hedge against inflation, so it’s foolish to blame property owners for not being as affected against inflation.
I guess these guys don’t want to sully their images by treading towards the grubby truth. What is it? Well, over 10 million people living here who were not born here. That’s a hell of a lot of people. Housebuilding has not met the increase in demand. It’s economics 101. Demand exceeds supply, result prices rise.
Houses are expensive because that's where most folk store their wealth which means most wealth is stored in houses which means houses attract all the inflation 👍
And then the cycle never ends
@vonteinvests-zs4yc unfortunately I agree but they could end the cycle by taming excessive public spending & borrowing..
@@TJ-db9lg Slow things down a bit..
I agree with the question about why ppl live in london. Please have someone tell the uk government that workers should a right to work remote and we all will live outside of london
Even with two “high” paying jobs, I’m still baffled how there are thousands of people buying these million dollar homes in London, New York, LA, and Vancouver. Who are these people?!?!
I live in a place were my home is 25% of the price a home would cost in NY.
Housing as investments has ruined everything! Corporations and PE funds should not be able to buy single family houses!
My dad paid 68k for a new construction house in 99, and was making 70k a year.
I am a single income household bringing up a kid and it sucks 😢. Every penny counts
Ditto me in the 1980s. It sucked then too. Don’t let these people tell you everyone reaped the same benefits.
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
Interesting but the mobile home thing might produce many unwanted consequences such as shanty towns. A bit like Churchill, one of his Conservative colleagues, who I think , said that he had 10 ideas a day , 9 of which were bad, but one might be brilliant.
i think nowadays unless you have a salary greater than £35k you can't really have a good quality of life, one of the things that need looked at is the unjustified fuel increase as well as energy bills being up.
I own a full sized van just in case. Even working a full time job, I've become priced out of everything. I don't make enough to get a halfway decent place, and I make too much for the government subsidized places where I wouldn't want to live anyway. If it weren't for my parents, I would already be living in my van. My siblings have spouses who work and they're just barely scraping by, even with no children.
The issue with mobile nuclear power plants, as you'd have to build a squadron of ships just to defend it.
Been saying this for years, doesn’t have to be the mother to stay at home ie my wife does a more important job than me, and gets paid roughly the same. Added to the financial cost, you could argue there a community cost too, nobody at home during the day, nobody hardly knows their neighbours etc
How do we get either a massive, sustained rise in average wages (so people can afford housing and having a family) or massive, sustained reduction in house prices (relative to average wages)?
A massive, sustained drop in the labour supply. I.e. stop immigration. It’s the law of supply and demand.
On the latter, reduction of the property deficit (large building companies sit on land & don't build to maintain the monopoly pricing on current housing stock) & rent control. House prices adjust as supply & demand stabilise & RC anchors the market & informs the value of the asset.
I've been saying this for decades. Women's Lib, as it was called, essentially encourage/pushed almost all women into full-time work from post-education. Supply of money for housing went up so prices went up accordingly. Now we're all suffering, especially single people. The cruel irony is, most married women end up wanting to stop work some time after the second child anyway but now many families can't afford for that to happen. Sometimes chasing ideals doesn't actually make us happier.
This man is speaking facts
Greed doesn't lead to a better life, it leads to it's destruction.
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 !
Mr Sutherland is a Georgist (as am I)
Fay Weldon came up with ‘go to work on an egg’. Thanks for reminding me.
Ask what is money, look into the history of money and you'll understand why real estate is si expensive.
After the war many homes sprung up all around Canada that by today's standard would not be considered as good enough to buy. Simple and small. People lived simply and modestly and with much less than today. They didn't all own cars. They packed their lunches. They sewed their own clothes. They patched their jeans and put new heels on their old shoes. They required no credit cards and saved up for everything they wanted. Easy money fueled the rise in the cost of homes. Banks were very careful before. They even closed at 3pm to make sure you couldn't get in to take money out. Remember? I know some of you do. The rest are too young and that's why you are confused about why Canada sucks now. It can't be fixed either because to the overlords we are all just cattle easily controlled by the fences they put up. Too weak to fight back. It's over.
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.
It’s supply and demand and a cultural problem. We just need to build more housing, either sacrifice the gardens and build flats or sacrifice the green belt. It’s as simple as that. But nobody wants to say it because it’s culturally unacceptable.
People want to live in a house with a garden even in London. In most big cities like Paris or Madrid people live in flats. So you can’t build up because of hight restrictions and people preferring houses. What about building out? Doesn’t work, we have green belts around our cities. As a result of all these restrictions not enough houses are being built. Everything else is a symptom of that problem, two incomes, not enough affordable housing, too many immigrants, homelessness, etc.
My Grandma made more than my Grandpa. However when she had kids due to societal norms she stopped working.
You should try to get Stiglitz on to discuss economics as a theology.
When you consider jobs and work as a commodity as in a high demand for a job with low supply of those able to work it increases the value and therefore the wage of the job while low demand of the work and high supply of those able to work it decreases value and its wage, imagine having half the population going to work and the other half staying home, taking care of the kids for 100’s of years only to convince, in the span of 30-40 years, that homestead half to go out and work. What would that do to the value of work and therefore wages?
No you know why we can no longer afford to live anymore.
The game is rigged, I own my house outright but with property taxes and insurance rising every year those two monthly expenses are now MORE than the mortgage payment i had on my first home...I offset that expense with rental income but still find it offensive.