Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I am going to buy the fuck out of those...
having children is now a morally reprehensible act anyway
Houses represent indifferent domesticity. Snug and withdrawn in the glow of artificial coziness, and our half-closed eyes now seeking nothing other than the peaceful parade of television pictures. And on top of it all, endless debt to tie you to it forever.
Let's set up some shanty towns. Corrugated shacks FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just feeling really down about bricks today
And he's still not reading no goddam article!
Only Thursday morning and we've already covered Game of Thrones, feminism (good efficiency, Dave) and the London property prices. Might take tomorrow off.
for everyone to pre-emptively accuse the other side of always being mean to them
They could afford a house in London
but it would probably breach my self-imposed DiS restrictions. You can do it if you like though - reckon it's got some mileage in it.
Sydenham's alright, nowt special really, but there was a family trying to buy a 3 bedroom house there which was on the market for £499,999 (JFC). The *hilarious* thing is, last time it sold, which was EIGHT months ago (November 2013), it sold for £330,000.
In fairness the report seemed to suggest that the only alternative was moving to Preston. End of days stuff...
HOUSE PRICES WILL RISE EVEN MORE!!!!!!!!!
...a bingo hall before it was a pub from memory? And if so, probably a cinema before it was a bingo hall - what goes around and all that.
was the house's owner, who was described as buying and selling homes 'as a hobby', said that a recent viewing on another property of her's had been "horrendous" because 75 people showed up, and they could barely fit in the house to view it. HORRENDOUS. She's really earned that £170,000, that poor, poor woman.
and the law of probability states that at least one of them will have trodden in dog muck on the way over
that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to look after them, including housing them?
Why would you bring children into the world without being fairly certain you can provide for them?
Depending on if they've had kids by accident or not does doing this make people immoral or simply silly?
IMO Yes, it makes them both (tbh if they can provide for them or not)
Environmental degradation and post industrial poverty, and how that creates spates of desperate sexual relationships
and it would improve school exam results and lower the tax burden too.
often here this kind of view. I just think it is really simplistic, the economy needs low paid people, businesses depend on it, the wealth of some of the wealthy depends on it, we all depend on it through the services we use. Take them out of the equation and society wouldn't work anymore, so the individual focused view of 'if you can't afford it don't have it' isn't relevant, society is interconnected, and affordable housing options for all is a necessity, otherwise their will be serious problems. Plus its not even a problem that just affects the lowest paid anymore.
a full week WOULD be able to bring up their children, but selfish elitist cunts like you believe in obscene wage differentials and you follow ideas which will keep these increasing.
No offence intended, you selfish cunt
(or anywhere, to think of it).
I could bore you with the detail if you like, but it's conceivable that there will be a point in the future where no privately-rented accommodation is affordable for someone on a low income. Not even with the help of housing benefit.
you've already got that situation in large areas of the city.
As for the rest of London and the country, it's certainly the direction in which we're heading, or at least, there'll be no 'decent' homes that are affordable.
I just posted a huge reply to this but it rejected it because my title was too long.
I was just going to say that the help offered to people on low incomes who are privately renting has gradually been eroded over the past six years. So even if you can find a good landlord with a good property prepared to take on a tenant on benefits , the benefit offered may not cover the rent anywhere within certain area.
Let's just say that it's a tough sell! But we've had some success. If you know any landlords in the Cambridge then let me know ;)
There's so much unused space in London a simple law could be passed saying if it remains unoccupied or unused for over a year or two, then ownership is passed onto the local community. Create officially free spaces, occupied, staffed and controlled by non-hierarchical collectives.
But no, let's have spikes for the homeless instead. Lovely spikes.
how would a law that erodes the very concept of private property be 'simple' to pass?
who are the 'local community'?
why is the timeframe 'a year or two' in particular?
Don't think that includes derelict or empty areas either
The local community can apply to anyone who decides to go along and join the collective and contribute over a period of time.
The other questions I can't answer because I was half trolling but really I do think private property is a delusion and it's about time people woke up and saw the suffering and inequality it's causing, so.
that, if all goes well, will be used to rehouse five single homeless people.
HOWEVER, many empty homes are empty for a reason (e.g. structurally unsound, stuck in probate, etc) so it's not as simple as just moving people in.
Because they're based on council tax records, councils won't tax uninhabitable/due for demolition buildings, the probate issue is a fair point though and I wouldn't include buildings like that in what I'm saying.
You sound like you do some really worthwhile work for your community with the foodbank and this, you're a good egg.
but I didnt read it cause I generally object to the term 'A perfect storm' being used to describe things.
Read it now though, pretty grim stuff
Which is seriously jfc.
You should buy one
Is it a ronseal type place? Or am I going to be disappointed
So very, very disappointed.
Good houses too and a river walk. But the area is a bit grim.
had converted the spare room to a DJ room and there was about a million bits of vinyl in it and it looked awesome. Also they had loads of graphic novels and the flat was bloody great. Was about 2 minutes from the Catford Bridge Tavern too. So glad we didn't buy it tbh though :/
but are there lots of cats?
but consumer monetarist capitalism, depends on people not having enough to get by. Which is why I believe that socialisms attitude on this area is better.
as the family occupying it get huge welfare payments.....Im suprised the council hasnt attempted to house families in the spare bedrooms
They'd have flung open the doors long ago to house refugees of all nations who need it
Same with their other castles & grounds
Mass immigration pushes up house prices while keeping wages down. Has been shown to only be beneficial to employers and the upper/middle classes. London is a prime example. *no racist*
has more of a bad effect, also London centricity
“the impact on house prices of the accumulated increase in Tier 2 type immigrants over a five-year period is likely to be well below 1%. This might generate some transfer of properties to the rented sector but the effect on total new supply is likely to be very limited.”
“Immigration is one of many factors contributing to more demand for housing and higher house prices. We note the forecasts that, if current rates of net immigration persist, 20 years hence house prices would be over 10% higher than what they would be if there were zero net immigration. [emphasis added]"
I think it is a complicated picture, but that immigration certainly isn't the reason for current levels of house price inflation, while it may be a factor over the next 20 years it is not the major one
Willing to buy/rent at extortionate rates from agents with ludicrously inflated housing bubble prices
It might also be a symptom of the Londoncentric financial institutions of this country. Either way a yuppie is far more to blame than a migrant worker.
The fact is that mass immigration keeps wages down and, as any marxist worth their salt would know, reduces the bargaining power of labour. The facts that there is a shortage of well paid jobs and a shortage of affordable housing, go in tandem with each other. The situation is only beneficial to employers and the upper classes, especially in this instance, property owners (and yes, yuppies).
Who own the means of production, in conjunction with how much the market has commodified the fruits of the labor.
Not the wage slaves beneath it.
Migrants aren't given any choice but to work in substandard conditions by the employers. The point about there being too low pay to have affordable housing stands but it's the systems fault not the workers.
Wasn't assuming you blamed migrant workers personally jfc at all jfc jfc just wanted to point out migrants weren't the core issue
That's all I was saying. Let's agree to disagree.
In tandem suggests that they are in step with each other. They're not. 95% of the increase in housing unaffordability is unrelated to net immigration.
And even if immigration has presented the opportunity for employers to set unfair and unrealistic wage caps, it's not as if stopping immigration would make businesses raise their wage rates.
We need radical action both in how we approach house ownership and major reform to employment law (for immigrant workers as well as nationals).
because the economy is knacked so there is not the leeway to make 'deus ex machina' changes to get stuff on the right track, could have been done in the past.....bizarrely gov is still quite happy yo exagerate the worsening though, suspect they do not really understand much at all, and therefore feel quite happy in leaving stuff up to their god of 'arbitarily artificial and uneven market forces' :D
Mass immigration has no downsides whatsoever. The long standing principle of supply and demand just magically vanishes as soon as someone mentions it.
So confrontedbybears has something to reply to with a snarky one-liner later
lots of pundits say that house prices are well over valued even if you take into account rising population which immigration plays a part of, it is the speculative demand that is the problem.
But if it is just a case of supply and demand then why not increase the supply and build more houses, there is plenty of room for them
I'd have much less of a problem with mass immigration. Just doesn't seem to be on the cards in any concrete way.
well why not focus on that as the issue rather than immigration. the uk's population has been growing for 100 years, now people have noticed part of the population increase is due to immigration they are like 'enough is enough we are full', ignoring the benefits migration brings and the holes that it plugs, when in reality there is plenty of scope to build more
That's not really it man.
You're totally ignoring that mass immigration (not just "immigration") was a deliberate policy enacted in the nineties.
Is it safe to assume that everyone on this thread who is so defensive of the policy, was arguing for it to be introduced back then?
Either that, or you're saying that of all the things that the noted neoliberal Blair did, this is one that he got spot on.
The other possibility is that you simply don't like (or can't compute) the idea of opposing mass immigration, so you're taking a 'let's concentrate on other things' stance.
maybe 'mass immigration' was something new, I don't know I'm not aware of the policy behind it, but in terms of population growth it has been fairly steady over the century
I just can't process how anyone could think that allowing net migration of 200,000 people a year to a country with a well-documented housing shortage is a responsible thing to do. It's clear that there's no investment or will for a house building program on the scale needed, and why would there be when they can get away with charging what they do for houses and rent?
I'm aware of the benefits of immigration but people act like economic growth is the only measure of a population's wellbeing. I just think you need to draw a line somewhere - even if it's not worth worrying too much about right now, I don't see anything from the current crop of politicians that persuades me they'll ever admit to a need to draw one.
I would see the lack of adequate action on housing in general to be the irresponsible thing, as there would be serious problems there regardless of immigration
If it was so immigration based then areas of large immigration would all have inflated housing bubbles due to shortages. But cities in the North and Midlands, any other areas with high rates of immigration haven't experienced anything like the bubble we see in London. Imo it's clearly more because of perceived oppurtunity commodofying London houses, the financial industry being in London, and international investments going unused (housing as capital).
But it's still pretty difficult to get on the housing ladder wherever you live, and it's not like a London housing bubble doesn't have a knock-on effect on the rest of the country through a likely rise in interest rates.
It might be the fault of the administration that no-one will invest in new housing right now, but you can't honestly tell me that a 200K increase in population year on year is helping the situation while the capital is raised (or not, as seems to be the case).
thats like an extra 0.3% of population each year, it should be easy to build enough to keep up with that, the problem is people investing speculatively on the housing market, government policies, demographic shift more single occupant homes etc. the 0.3% is nothing really.
Would it even take capital, couldn't the government just reclassify some greenbelt land and the developers would swoop in.
So 99% of the problem not being immigration based
But yeah we do really need to build more houses. I think it's ideological why they don't though - I believe the Conservative party in particular have a vested interest in gradually gentrifying the center of (English)political power and finance
It figures in 'supply' in this case as just numbers of potential homeowners when it doesn't take into account cultural attitudes and commodification of a product (in this case houses). As the figures in the article upthread show immigration having much LESS than 1% increase on house prices in twenty years, it's clear they are happier renting etc and thus not effecting house prices as much as other factors.
where one bedroom is barely big enough to fit a single bed.
Remember paying £40 when I was a student. Big house, garden, big kitchen, big sitting room, #lads :''''(
...was 1000pcm and there were 4 bedrooms - so £250 a month! He only put the rent up £50 a month in the 3/4 years we were there.
Big house, garden, big kitchen, big sitting room, #lads :''''(
Was pretty much on the A406 though.
Previously listed for rent on 9th Jul 2013 for £1,650 pcm
4 bedroom terraced house
Tottenhall Road N13. Wood Green really, although Palmers Green postcode.
So 400 quid a month each.
I new it was low for the area but £1650pcm is what it'll be going up to in July and this is for a nice 3 bed, longue, garden in Dartmouth Park (Zone 2, between Tufnell Park and Hampstead Heath, Ed Milliband lives couple of streets down etc).
shock horror London is really expensive !
He's real (ish).
but nobody wants the sting