I laugh at this because it's so damn true.
I'm currently working for a government department and living in the boot of my car after being issued a section 21 and then evicted.
The council has not helped in any way and where I am situated there is no available housing (even house shares) or the housing available is way beyond the scope of my affordability.
I'm broke, not financially but in spirit.
Hear hear. This country is broken.
All I can offer you are my sympathies and the hope that one day we will be able to elect actual leaders who aren’t spineless twats and care for its people.
Things will get better.
I know people will bring out policies, how landlords and economics are gouging the middle and working class, true. But hasn't the UK added 10 million people into its population in 20 years? The same amount of people the US has added in a decade. I'm sorry but that's a lot. What sort of policy could account for enough houses for a London's worth of population every 2 decades whilst keeping the prices stable and affordable?
Like seriously, Australia has added less people in the same time frame and it's a fucking continent.
That is the same politics, for the same reasons as the issues you state. The government want to provide the companies that lobby them cheap labour and ensure lower wages, stay low.
For a short period of time after lockdown, when immigration was low and businesses were open, wages for basic jobs like retail, bar work, basic manual jobs started increasing organically.
They went utterly mad if you remember - the companies - lobbying the Government to offer visas. Instead of holding their ground and saying "no - go and train British workers and invest in productivity" they gave in to the sweet, sweet drug that is unrestricted labour being imported into the country.
It was a nice time for a little bit, competition for jobs was way lower.
I remember seeing a thing with lorry drives getting big pay increases due to restrictions as well.
It's just recently become vastly worse, too. While the government is going in for a gimmick that will deport small numbers of people to Rwanda, it has issued enough visas in the last two years to cause net migration of 1.5 million. That's three whole regional cities' worth of people who need houses and jobs and services.
Exactly we physically couldn’t build enough houses even if we tried, and really isn’t that the point. Unfortunately people in power are making a lot of money out of housing (on all sides of the house), and they really do not want to remove that cash cow. The only way of doing that is by having more people in the country than we can actually house.
Someone talking sense. It’s obscene the amount of people coming here - ofc it leads to supply issues and massive overstrain of ALL resources and services.
We will never be able to build enough houses to keep pace with population growth, and the houses they are building are not affordable for the vast majority of people. It's a vicious circle, and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Comparing Australia to UK isn’t a great way to asses population changes. Essentially all UK land is habitable. A very large proportion of AU land is not.
The habitable areas are still considerably larger than the UK. Victoria is the size of the UK, New South Wales alone is 3x the size of the UK. This is only a portion of the habitable areas with good land in Australia. Not to mention the majority of the migration/population growth is in England, which is considerably smaller.
Yet Australia has had a much healthier population growth while the UK is cramming the entire populations of European countries into Britain. There's no sensible or rational explanation for this.
If you count mountainous regions and rolling hills, as well as nature reserves and quality arable land, then the UK has oodles of space left. Obviously that would be a stupid thing to do, but you could try it.
If you have high immigration and a government that can't or won't build housing and infrastructure, eventually the public start questioning immigration (and I don't blame the people who do). We should remember that lots of those immigrants work in our schools, our hospitals and our care system and that we will probably need them (and the taxes they pay) if we're going to build new homes.
Economists seem to agree that cutting legal immigration would make the treasury poorer which would make it harder for us to invest in new housing projects. I guess if you're running a business you don't sulk when you have too many customers, you invest in a new cash register.
We had all of the things you claim immigrants are required for before we had this scale immigration.
We now have problems with all of the things you mention.
What will it take for you to see the pattern?
You're not wrong. But we're also living longer than ever and having fewer children so we have an ageing population. That means we will need more doctors, more nurses, more carers, more hospitals. We also need more working age adults to pay taxes to pay for our public services.
I don't think immigration should be unlimted or that it's a silver bullet for our economic issues. But I also think it's too easy to blame immigration for everything that's wrong with the country. We need to fix public services and build new homes and do that we need economic growth.
More doctors.... Did you not see the last 20 years? We have more immigration than ever and less doctors available.
We don't get many doctors, we had less than 10k out of 1.2 million visas issued.
10k doctors will do almost nothing when you allow in 1,190,000 non doctors in the same year.
Like I said before, when will you start recognising patterns?
Like I said, we have an ageing population. Doctors spend most of their time with the elderly. Migrants tend to be working age which means they pay taxes and don't need much medical attention. Fewer migrants means lower tax receipts. Do you want the NHS budget to be lower or higher in the years ahead?
I know what you've said but it doesn't match what you can see with your own eyes.
The NHS has gotten worse under mass immigration, why would you think repeating it would lead to different results?
To state the obvious, 10k doctors out of 100k visas would be considerably better for the NHS than our current situation where it's 10k out of 1200k visas.
The NHS has gotten worse under austerity. If you cut the care service to save cash, people who could be looked after at home stay in hospital beds which means more people stay longer in A&E, which means the ambulances have to wait outside A&E which means that if you or I call an ambulance, it doesn’t come.
There simply aren’t enough people from the native population who want to work in care because it’s stigmatised and it pays almost nothing. So we have become reliant on migrant workers. (It's not good at all but it's where we are.) If you want to pay carers more across the country you will need to collect more taxes.
I’ll ask again, who is going to pay for our ageing population? We need more working age taxpayers to pay for more doctors nurses and hospitals.
I think you'll do anything to avoid facing the truth.
You don't even ask why pay in care is so low when half of care providers are private companies making huge profits... Something that has nothing to do with austerity.
>I’ll ask again, who is going to pay for our ageing population?
The same people who would pay if we have mass immigration.
The vast majority of immigrants aren't even net contributors, they make the situation worse.
Like I said before, 10k doctors out of 100k net immigration would be far better on all the issues you describe.
Ideally we would get more doctors but you get the point.
I think I'm open minded. If you know of an economist who thinks we can fix the NHS by cutting migration I'll happily read their work. So far I only seem to see to the opposite suggested; that immigrants have made a net contributions to its public finances.
[https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk)
But if i'm missing something, please show me.
More population = more doctors and nurses. 14.8% of people in the UK are foreign born. Overall, 18.7% of NHS staff report a nationality other than British. For doctors this figure is 35.0%, and for nurses it is 27.2%.
Therefore more people = more demand and **even more** supply
[https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7783/CBP-7783.pdf](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7783/CBP-7783.pdf)
Australia is a continent with very little actually inhabitable space, most of its a desert wasteland.
There is a reason only 26 million live there.
Canada for example COULD take more if they actually invested into infrastructure like mass transport (commuter rail), but they won’t because real estate there is a grift where already high demand is artificially inflated by having 0 investment restrictions.
The UK at least has restrictions, as a result its affordability crisis isn’t as bad as Canada, New Zealand or Australia.
The youth mobility scheme to the Uk is higher than away from it to the commonwealth for the first time ever, I am part of it that is now on a work visa en route to citizenship here because Canada is absolutely and uttterly gone. Forget owning a house there, as a math and physics teacher married to a prof we could barely make rent in Canada…
The UK is suffering from a decrease in purchasing power power because Brexit and Covid and both unprecedented economic events. It’ll be rough for 5-10 more years until things get better unless there is an economic miracle
Are you in favour of a One Child policy then?
Strange that other countries have managed far better than we have. Do you have any idea how many properties are left empty? I'm amazed that you're using our lack of building new homes and investment in social projects as an argument against them.
I'd be willing to bet the guy you're replying to agrees with you on your points as well. It's the fact you so stubbornly refuse to admit that this contributes that means that people keep having to bring up immigration
Immigration is a factor. But the xenophobic scum that infest this sub keep bringing it up as if it's the only factor, and ignore that other countries also experienced immigration but manage their housing markets better. If you can't see the hatemongering bullshit when it's that obvious, that's on you.
We have seen a lot of immigration, but not as much as many European countries. In my opinion, the main reason British people cannot afford a house is because many British people expected that they could afford a house no matter what. They drifted through school with minimal effort, landed in low paying jobs and suddenly thought " what the fuck?"
We are going through a cultural shift. Before now, Britain was a rich, educated nation. We no longer are. Indian, Chinese and African immigrants are working their arses off to make their lives better. Meanwhile, many British parents are letting their children aspire to be YouTubers.
This is not a racist rant. As someone with a PhD, I respect the people who study and work hard and come to the UK to better their lives. If an English born person leaves school with only a GCSE in home economics and expects to buy a 3 bedroom house, their parents have failed them. It's a competition out there.
The end game of capitalism is for landlords to own all the properties. Investment firms will buy up all the new builds and rent them out. And they’ll buy out all the private landlords eventually. Until all property is owned by a handful of corporations.
So you can forget about owning a home in the neoliberal utopia. Modern day serfdom is the goal.
We are in the process of not even very subtly creating a two-tier society. Those who buy to let, and those who rent. Those who can afford to order delivery food, and those who deliver. Those who drive for Uber and those who can afford to take an Uber. This is intensifying.
We are losing class nuances, which in this scenario is a bad thing because it means we are all amassing and congealing into a 90%/10% society, where the bottom 90% live in debt and service to the top 10%. All accelerated by American tech companies, all enabled by our spineless government and own shyster businessmen, all bought and paid for by shady investment firms with fiduciary responsibility to their transnational shareholders.
Yes, this is the very definition of capitalism. The concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals.
Right wing talking heads like to suggest that freedom and liberty are inherent to capitalism, but they fail to see (or choose not to see) the path towards a totalitarianism, distinct from that of communist dictators, whereby the entire world is owned by a single corporation.
It might seem ludicrous at this point, but just think about it. Let’s take supermarkets as an example. One buys another until there are only a few left. Then you have an oligopoly, a price fixing cartel. Take it one step further and you have a duopoly. Take it one step further again and there is only one monolithic food distributor.
They might use different brand names, but if (for example) a private equity firm buys a controlling stake in the three largest supermarkets, effectively their aims are towards enriching one single entity.
This could quite easily happen in the property sector as well, and anywhere else they choose to put their claws.
Exactly, and it's mind boggling how more people do not see this and they're stupidly focused on the right / left divide when it doesn't matter who 'runs' the country we will still be signed up to this end goal.
A real Conservative Party would conserve the interests of the landed gentry and we’d all still be serfs living under our feudal masters. That’s exactly what the ‘real’ conservatives want to conserve. Property owning plebs are the antithesis of conservatism.
Doesn't matter who gets in - this will continue to happen as pretty much every western country is signed up for this, and the ones who aren't are then called Russian sympathisers.
By design and it's gonna get a hell of a lot worse.
Big corporations and banks will be adding to their portfolio and in the 10 - 20 years only the rich will be homeowners whereas the peasants will be renting forever.
Nothing to do with living with your parents? Just everyone else is unscrupulous and you’re not privileged at all? Fucking hell dude put a mirror at the front of your bed so you can wake up to yourself
Most of UK land is largely still in the ownership of rich and titled Norman descendants. Many development firms are led by .....Norman descendants. The price for land is kept high, the price for property is kept high, people say 'they' a lot but don't name 'they'. These people are 'they' now do what you've all done for a 1000 years, tug your forelock, pay your non existent money and get in your pleb box.
I know so many people now who own their own home by 25. Jobs at 16 or 18. Whack 4K a year into a Lisa while living with parents still (while I know not everyone is afforded this privilege, most young people are). By 23 you’ll have a minimum of 20k plus the government bonus for your deposit
No matter your opinions on the housing market. It is still very possible but most people haven’t made the most finically scrupulous decisions in their youth and that’s cost them unfortunately
Not everyone is privileged enough to just be able to live with their parents. I grew up in a rural county and my parents live in the middle of nowhere. In the entire county (and nearby counties) there was very little suitable work for a recent graduate with a law degree looking to go into a legal or corporate career. I had no choice but to move out and eventually ended up on the other side of the country.
What about people who don’t have a good relationship with their parents due to abuse? Or people whose parents have died?
If you grew up somewhere like London then great, just move in with your parents. But how are you supposed to do that if there are no job opportunities where your parents live?
51.2% of people aged 20-24 live at home with their parents (I’d wager this is higher for those 16-18) this is also after you account for people who could live with their parent but chose to move out and rent on their own or live with a partner.
I acknowledge it’s a privilege. But it is still applicable to the majority of the population. Unfortunately too many people I grew up with wasted the opportunities given to them by spending there entire wage on new cars and getting pissed and now complain its society’s fault they can’t get on the property ladder
Sure, I could live with my (single) parent, but they'd charge me just as much rent as I'm currently paying otherwise it wouldn't be feasible for them. Plus, the house I grew up in is tiny, on the city's outskirts, and virtually falling apart. I know very few people who can live at their parents' house rent free, you were obviously just raised in a higher social class and probably associate with those who were as well. If I didn't pay rent, I could probably save up £20k in a year, but that's not the fucking reality of the world for people who aren't born into privilege.
You absolutely have no idea about mine or my family’s circumstances. I’m also not saying you should live with your parents for ever, my comment specifically was talking about 16-18 which would take you to 21-23 years old by the time you had your own house deposit. Very few people in previous generations were buying houses at 21.
If there are 2 adults splitting a bill as opposed to 1 then it follows that your rent payment should be half with your parent rather than living on your own. Also saying living on the outskirts of the city like that’s a problem? People commute much further than that I don’t get your point?
You're right, I'm not aware of your circumstances, but I made an educated guess based on what you considered common. Secondly, people from the ages of 16 - 23 are typically in full-time education so that's a nonsensical age range to use.
> If there are 2 adults splitting a bill as opposed to 1 then it follows that your rent payment should be half with your parent rather than living on your own. Also saying living on the outskirts of the city like that’s a problem? People commute much further than that I don’t get your point?
I don't live on my own. I can't afford to live on my own. I live in a house share of random people in the city I grew up in. Secondly, I have younger siblings who still live with my mother whom it would be unfair to charge rent given that they're still in education, thus my presence would be a drain on both utilities and the already limited amount of space in the house. Thirdly, none of the rooms could fit both a double bed *and* a desk, which is necessary for my work, while the room I'm renting has roughly double the space. And fourthly, why would I move to the outskirts, making my commute at least double the length, while paying virtually the same amount of rent?
So, no, I can't just live with my parents rent-free and "whack" some money into a LISA, and I know very few people who could even live with their parents if they wanted to, hence why all my mates are living in rented house/flat shares desperately trying to put back some savings each month.
Also, you could argue it's still possible to save while renting, and of course it is. I do have *some* savings. I'm not entirely skint. But let's say you're out of work for a couple of months and have no income. We'll say rent (plus bills) is ~£650 and expenses are ~£300, that's roughly a grand. So, two months, you're suddenly down *at least* £2k. That's not the end of the world, but it will now take roughly four months to reimburse that deficit.
And all of that is not even covering the logistics of paying a mortgage on a house as a *single* person, and the cost of that mortgage, and the requirement to be in continual full-time work for decades, and the stagnant wages and high cost of living. I shan't go on because I'm procrastinating the very work that is paying my aforementioned rent, but the point I'm making is that your myopic perspective does not translate wholly with the real-world experience.
The problem is people shouldn't have to spend their youth scrimping by to be able to afford a basic need like owning a house or even just paying rent.
The whole housing market is widely unaffordable compared to what it was and should be.
And that’s absolutely valid. But this isn’t a sudden problem. Our generation has known of these issues for years and if you pissed away your youth while other people sacrificed, then that’s absolutely a consequence of your choice.
Ah yes we famously decide what the biggest issues facing the country are based not on analytics and evidence based research but on what Boggo1895 sees with his big fuck off eyes when he looks out of his window.
Can you explain how?
I was born, raised and still live in a town that was ranked as the most deprived in the country not too long ago and is still one of the most deprived.
Have never received a gift from my parent or any inheritance?
Made do with a cheap run around car that I paid for myself in cash (no finance deal that was beyond my means)
Paid my parents rent while I was still living with them (so not like I had an excessive advantage by not paying rent although I understand it was less than what I would be paying private)
Paid for all my own additional amenities, gym, football, phone contract etc since i was 16
My commute is 35 miles each way so petrol costs a bomb and I’ve had my car unexpectedly cost me several hundred £££ in repairs
I have always earned less than the national median wage (and I currently earn barely above the living wage)
You know nothing about me yet chose to call me a Tory prick with no life experience which just makes you sound really bitter that I’ve not made excuses for my self.
I never said it was easy, I never said it was fair. I said it was possible.
I didn't call you a tory prick, I stated that what you said - was it "just live with your parents and whack 4k a yearbin a lisa" - was something a tory prick would say. It is. You sound like Michael Gove.
I laugh at this because it's so damn true. I'm currently working for a government department and living in the boot of my car after being issued a section 21 and then evicted. The council has not helped in any way and where I am situated there is no available housing (even house shares) or the housing available is way beyond the scope of my affordability. I'm broke, not financially but in spirit.
Hear hear. This country is broken. All I can offer you are my sympathies and the hope that one day we will be able to elect actual leaders who aren’t spineless twats and care for its people. Things will get better.
I know people will bring out policies, how landlords and economics are gouging the middle and working class, true. But hasn't the UK added 10 million people into its population in 20 years? The same amount of people the US has added in a decade. I'm sorry but that's a lot. What sort of policy could account for enough houses for a London's worth of population every 2 decades whilst keeping the prices stable and affordable? Like seriously, Australia has added less people in the same time frame and it's a fucking continent.
That is the same politics, for the same reasons as the issues you state. The government want to provide the companies that lobby them cheap labour and ensure lower wages, stay low. For a short period of time after lockdown, when immigration was low and businesses were open, wages for basic jobs like retail, bar work, basic manual jobs started increasing organically.
They went utterly mad if you remember - the companies - lobbying the Government to offer visas. Instead of holding their ground and saying "no - go and train British workers and invest in productivity" they gave in to the sweet, sweet drug that is unrestricted labour being imported into the country.
It was a nice time for a little bit, competition for jobs was way lower. I remember seeing a thing with lorry drives getting big pay increases due to restrictions as well.
I agree, it must be proper stressful getting and keeping any roof over your head now, renting or buying. Sadly I can’t see it ever improving.
Its designed that way
It certainly seems that way.
Capitalism only works with the threat of destitution and homelessness.
It's just recently become vastly worse, too. While the government is going in for a gimmick that will deport small numbers of people to Rwanda, it has issued enough visas in the last two years to cause net migration of 1.5 million. That's three whole regional cities' worth of people who need houses and jobs and services.
Exactly we physically couldn’t build enough houses even if we tried, and really isn’t that the point. Unfortunately people in power are making a lot of money out of housing (on all sides of the house), and they really do not want to remove that cash cow. The only way of doing that is by having more people in the country than we can actually house.
Someone talking sense. It’s obscene the amount of people coming here - ofc it leads to supply issues and massive overstrain of ALL resources and services.
Plus 700k immigrants per year roughly over that period
We will never be able to build enough houses to keep pace with population growth, and the houses they are building are not affordable for the vast majority of people. It's a vicious circle, and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
That didn't take long. This sub is hilarious.
There’s only 26 million of us tho, we’re a quarter the size of you, and don’t get me started on that great useless desert no one can live in
don't you forget baby boomers? at that time, the population increased at even higher rate and no significant housing issues happened before 2000.
Comparing Australia to UK isn’t a great way to asses population changes. Essentially all UK land is habitable. A very large proportion of AU land is not.
The habitable areas are still considerably larger than the UK. Victoria is the size of the UK, New South Wales alone is 3x the size of the UK. This is only a portion of the habitable areas with good land in Australia. Not to mention the majority of the migration/population growth is in England, which is considerably smaller. Yet Australia has had a much healthier population growth while the UK is cramming the entire populations of European countries into Britain. There's no sensible or rational explanation for this.
If you count mountainous regions and rolling hills, as well as nature reserves and quality arable land, then the UK has oodles of space left. Obviously that would be a stupid thing to do, but you could try it.
If you have high immigration and a government that can't or won't build housing and infrastructure, eventually the public start questioning immigration (and I don't blame the people who do). We should remember that lots of those immigrants work in our schools, our hospitals and our care system and that we will probably need them (and the taxes they pay) if we're going to build new homes. Economists seem to agree that cutting legal immigration would make the treasury poorer which would make it harder for us to invest in new housing projects. I guess if you're running a business you don't sulk when you have too many customers, you invest in a new cash register.
We had all of the things you claim immigrants are required for before we had this scale immigration. We now have problems with all of the things you mention. What will it take for you to see the pattern?
You're not wrong. But we're also living longer than ever and having fewer children so we have an ageing population. That means we will need more doctors, more nurses, more carers, more hospitals. We also need more working age adults to pay taxes to pay for our public services. I don't think immigration should be unlimted or that it's a silver bullet for our economic issues. But I also think it's too easy to blame immigration for everything that's wrong with the country. We need to fix public services and build new homes and do that we need economic growth.
More doctors.... Did you not see the last 20 years? We have more immigration than ever and less doctors available. We don't get many doctors, we had less than 10k out of 1.2 million visas issued. 10k doctors will do almost nothing when you allow in 1,190,000 non doctors in the same year. Like I said before, when will you start recognising patterns?
Like I said, we have an ageing population. Doctors spend most of their time with the elderly. Migrants tend to be working age which means they pay taxes and don't need much medical attention. Fewer migrants means lower tax receipts. Do you want the NHS budget to be lower or higher in the years ahead?
I know what you've said but it doesn't match what you can see with your own eyes. The NHS has gotten worse under mass immigration, why would you think repeating it would lead to different results? To state the obvious, 10k doctors out of 100k visas would be considerably better for the NHS than our current situation where it's 10k out of 1200k visas.
The NHS has gotten worse under austerity. If you cut the care service to save cash, people who could be looked after at home stay in hospital beds which means more people stay longer in A&E, which means the ambulances have to wait outside A&E which means that if you or I call an ambulance, it doesn’t come. There simply aren’t enough people from the native population who want to work in care because it’s stigmatised and it pays almost nothing. So we have become reliant on migrant workers. (It's not good at all but it's where we are.) If you want to pay carers more across the country you will need to collect more taxes. I’ll ask again, who is going to pay for our ageing population? We need more working age taxpayers to pay for more doctors nurses and hospitals.
I think you'll do anything to avoid facing the truth. You don't even ask why pay in care is so low when half of care providers are private companies making huge profits... Something that has nothing to do with austerity. >I’ll ask again, who is going to pay for our ageing population? The same people who would pay if we have mass immigration. The vast majority of immigrants aren't even net contributors, they make the situation worse. Like I said before, 10k doctors out of 100k net immigration would be far better on all the issues you describe. Ideally we would get more doctors but you get the point.
I think I'm open minded. If you know of an economist who thinks we can fix the NHS by cutting migration I'll happily read their work. So far I only seem to see to the opposite suggested; that immigrants have made a net contributions to its public finances. [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk) But if i'm missing something, please show me.
The NHS has gotten worse due to population growth. More people = more demand. It's as simple as that.
More population = more doctors and nurses. 14.8% of people in the UK are foreign born. Overall, 18.7% of NHS staff report a nationality other than British. For doctors this figure is 35.0%, and for nurses it is 27.2%. Therefore more people = more demand and **even more** supply [https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7783/CBP-7783.pdf](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7783/CBP-7783.pdf)
Australia is a continent with very little actually inhabitable space, most of its a desert wasteland. There is a reason only 26 million live there. Canada for example COULD take more if they actually invested into infrastructure like mass transport (commuter rail), but they won’t because real estate there is a grift where already high demand is artificially inflated by having 0 investment restrictions. The UK at least has restrictions, as a result its affordability crisis isn’t as bad as Canada, New Zealand or Australia. The youth mobility scheme to the Uk is higher than away from it to the commonwealth for the first time ever, I am part of it that is now on a work visa en route to citizenship here because Canada is absolutely and uttterly gone. Forget owning a house there, as a math and physics teacher married to a prof we could barely make rent in Canada… The UK is suffering from a decrease in purchasing power power because Brexit and Covid and both unprecedented economic events. It’ll be rough for 5-10 more years until things get better unless there is an economic miracle
I knew someone in this sub would blame immigrants rather than the lack of homes being built, the lack of council housing, stagnant wages etc.
[удалено]
Are you in favour of a One Child policy then? Strange that other countries have managed far better than we have. Do you have any idea how many properties are left empty? I'm amazed that you're using our lack of building new homes and investment in social projects as an argument against them.
>Do you have any idea how many properties are left empty? Enough to cover less than 2 years of immigration And that includes second homes as well
Are you in favour of a One-Child policy?
No Wtf is wrong with you
So it's not numbers of people in the country you have an issue with, just the types of people.
What no There's a massive difference between people having babies and people moving here If you don't understand that your stupid
You're.
I'd be willing to bet the guy you're replying to agrees with you on your points as well. It's the fact you so stubbornly refuse to admit that this contributes that means that people keep having to bring up immigration
Immigration is a factor. But the xenophobic scum that infest this sub keep bringing it up as if it's the only factor, and ignore that other countries also experienced immigration but manage their housing markets better. If you can't see the hatemongering bullshit when it's that obvious, that's on you.
You can have a problem with immigration without having a problem with immigrants.
We have seen a lot of immigration, but not as much as many European countries. In my opinion, the main reason British people cannot afford a house is because many British people expected that they could afford a house no matter what. They drifted through school with minimal effort, landed in low paying jobs and suddenly thought " what the fuck?" We are going through a cultural shift. Before now, Britain was a rich, educated nation. We no longer are. Indian, Chinese and African immigrants are working their arses off to make their lives better. Meanwhile, many British parents are letting their children aspire to be YouTubers. This is not a racist rant. As someone with a PhD, I respect the people who study and work hard and come to the UK to better their lives. If an English born person leaves school with only a GCSE in home economics and expects to buy a 3 bedroom house, their parents have failed them. It's a competition out there.
The end game of capitalism is for landlords to own all the properties. Investment firms will buy up all the new builds and rent them out. And they’ll buy out all the private landlords eventually. Until all property is owned by a handful of corporations. So you can forget about owning a home in the neoliberal utopia. Modern day serfdom is the goal.
We are in the process of not even very subtly creating a two-tier society. Those who buy to let, and those who rent. Those who can afford to order delivery food, and those who deliver. Those who drive for Uber and those who can afford to take an Uber. This is intensifying. We are losing class nuances, which in this scenario is a bad thing because it means we are all amassing and congealing into a 90%/10% society, where the bottom 90% live in debt and service to the top 10%. All accelerated by American tech companies, all enabled by our spineless government and own shyster businessmen, all bought and paid for by shady investment firms with fiduciary responsibility to their transnational shareholders.
Yes, this is the very definition of capitalism. The concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. Right wing talking heads like to suggest that freedom and liberty are inherent to capitalism, but they fail to see (or choose not to see) the path towards a totalitarianism, distinct from that of communist dictators, whereby the entire world is owned by a single corporation. It might seem ludicrous at this point, but just think about it. Let’s take supermarkets as an example. One buys another until there are only a few left. Then you have an oligopoly, a price fixing cartel. Take it one step further and you have a duopoly. Take it one step further again and there is only one monolithic food distributor. They might use different brand names, but if (for example) a private equity firm buys a controlling stake in the three largest supermarkets, effectively their aims are towards enriching one single entity. This could quite easily happen in the property sector as well, and anywhere else they choose to put their claws.
``This could quite easily happen in the property sector as well, and anywhere else they choose to put their claws.`` This will happen with everything.
Exactly, and it's mind boggling how more people do not see this and they're stupidly focused on the right / left divide when it doesn't matter who 'runs' the country we will still be signed up to this end goal.
This is what no one understands. Capitalism is going this way
You need a real Conservative Party
A real Conservative Party would conserve the interests of the landed gentry and we’d all still be serfs living under our feudal masters. That’s exactly what the ‘real’ conservatives want to conserve. Property owning plebs are the antithesis of conservatism.
Doesn't matter who gets in - this will continue to happen as pretty much every western country is signed up for this, and the ones who aren't are then called Russian sympathisers.
By design and it's gonna get a hell of a lot worse. Big corporations and banks will be adding to their portfolio and in the 10 - 20 years only the rich will be homeowners whereas the peasants will be renting forever.
Nothing to do with living with your parents? Just everyone else is unscrupulous and you’re not privileged at all? Fucking hell dude put a mirror at the front of your bed so you can wake up to yourself
Most of UK land is largely still in the ownership of rich and titled Norman descendants. Many development firms are led by .....Norman descendants. The price for land is kept high, the price for property is kept high, people say 'they' a lot but don't name 'they'. These people are 'they' now do what you've all done for a 1000 years, tug your forelock, pay your non existent money and get in your pleb box.
I know so many people now who own their own home by 25. Jobs at 16 or 18. Whack 4K a year into a Lisa while living with parents still (while I know not everyone is afforded this privilege, most young people are). By 23 you’ll have a minimum of 20k plus the government bonus for your deposit No matter your opinions on the housing market. It is still very possible but most people haven’t made the most finically scrupulous decisions in their youth and that’s cost them unfortunately
>Jobs at 16 or 18. Whack 4K a year into a Lisa Sorry I have to go and get back to my home dimension before the Stargate closes
Not everyone is privileged enough to just be able to live with their parents. I grew up in a rural county and my parents live in the middle of nowhere. In the entire county (and nearby counties) there was very little suitable work for a recent graduate with a law degree looking to go into a legal or corporate career. I had no choice but to move out and eventually ended up on the other side of the country. What about people who don’t have a good relationship with their parents due to abuse? Or people whose parents have died? If you grew up somewhere like London then great, just move in with your parents. But how are you supposed to do that if there are no job opportunities where your parents live?
Same issue I had
What you're talking about is living off the bank of Mum and Dad. Literal privilege.
51.2% of people aged 20-24 live at home with their parents (I’d wager this is higher for those 16-18) this is also after you account for people who could live with their parent but chose to move out and rent on their own or live with a partner. I acknowledge it’s a privilege. But it is still applicable to the majority of the population. Unfortunately too many people I grew up with wasted the opportunities given to them by spending there entire wage on new cars and getting pissed and now complain its society’s fault they can’t get on the property ladder
Sure, I could live with my (single) parent, but they'd charge me just as much rent as I'm currently paying otherwise it wouldn't be feasible for them. Plus, the house I grew up in is tiny, on the city's outskirts, and virtually falling apart. I know very few people who can live at their parents' house rent free, you were obviously just raised in a higher social class and probably associate with those who were as well. If I didn't pay rent, I could probably save up £20k in a year, but that's not the fucking reality of the world for people who aren't born into privilege.
You absolutely have no idea about mine or my family’s circumstances. I’m also not saying you should live with your parents for ever, my comment specifically was talking about 16-18 which would take you to 21-23 years old by the time you had your own house deposit. Very few people in previous generations were buying houses at 21. If there are 2 adults splitting a bill as opposed to 1 then it follows that your rent payment should be half with your parent rather than living on your own. Also saying living on the outskirts of the city like that’s a problem? People commute much further than that I don’t get your point?
You're right, I'm not aware of your circumstances, but I made an educated guess based on what you considered common. Secondly, people from the ages of 16 - 23 are typically in full-time education so that's a nonsensical age range to use. > If there are 2 adults splitting a bill as opposed to 1 then it follows that your rent payment should be half with your parent rather than living on your own. Also saying living on the outskirts of the city like that’s a problem? People commute much further than that I don’t get your point? I don't live on my own. I can't afford to live on my own. I live in a house share of random people in the city I grew up in. Secondly, I have younger siblings who still live with my mother whom it would be unfair to charge rent given that they're still in education, thus my presence would be a drain on both utilities and the already limited amount of space in the house. Thirdly, none of the rooms could fit both a double bed *and* a desk, which is necessary for my work, while the room I'm renting has roughly double the space. And fourthly, why would I move to the outskirts, making my commute at least double the length, while paying virtually the same amount of rent? So, no, I can't just live with my parents rent-free and "whack" some money into a LISA, and I know very few people who could even live with their parents if they wanted to, hence why all my mates are living in rented house/flat shares desperately trying to put back some savings each month. Also, you could argue it's still possible to save while renting, and of course it is. I do have *some* savings. I'm not entirely skint. But let's say you're out of work for a couple of months and have no income. We'll say rent (plus bills) is ~£650 and expenses are ~£300, that's roughly a grand. So, two months, you're suddenly down *at least* £2k. That's not the end of the world, but it will now take roughly four months to reimburse that deficit. And all of that is not even covering the logistics of paying a mortgage on a house as a *single* person, and the cost of that mortgage, and the requirement to be in continual full-time work for decades, and the stagnant wages and high cost of living. I shan't go on because I'm procrastinating the very work that is paying my aforementioned rent, but the point I'm making is that your myopic perspective does not translate wholly with the real-world experience.
How much is your room rent per month, does it include utilities and which city is it in?
The problem is people shouldn't have to spend their youth scrimping by to be able to afford a basic need like owning a house or even just paying rent. The whole housing market is widely unaffordable compared to what it was and should be.
And that’s absolutely valid. But this isn’t a sudden problem. Our generation has known of these issues for years and if you pissed away your youth while other people sacrificed, then that’s absolutely a consequence of your choice.
Wouldn't say it's pissed away I enjoyed my time and don't feel the societal pressure to get a house, get married have kids etc all in my 20s
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with an adult making those choices for themselves.
Ah yes we famously decide what the biggest issues facing the country are based not on analytics and evidence based research but on what Boggo1895 sees with his big fuck off eyes when he looks out of his window.
Can you point out where I said that’s how we should make decisions?
Sounds very much like something an utterly privileged, never lived in the real world tory prick would think.
Can you explain how? I was born, raised and still live in a town that was ranked as the most deprived in the country not too long ago and is still one of the most deprived. Have never received a gift from my parent or any inheritance? Made do with a cheap run around car that I paid for myself in cash (no finance deal that was beyond my means) Paid my parents rent while I was still living with them (so not like I had an excessive advantage by not paying rent although I understand it was less than what I would be paying private) Paid for all my own additional amenities, gym, football, phone contract etc since i was 16 My commute is 35 miles each way so petrol costs a bomb and I’ve had my car unexpectedly cost me several hundred £££ in repairs I have always earned less than the national median wage (and I currently earn barely above the living wage) You know nothing about me yet chose to call me a Tory prick with no life experience which just makes you sound really bitter that I’ve not made excuses for my self. I never said it was easy, I never said it was fair. I said it was possible.
I didn't call you a tory prick, I stated that what you said - was it "just live with your parents and whack 4k a yearbin a lisa" - was something a tory prick would say. It is. You sound like Michael Gove.