3 ms·

Rising house prices are not really a reason for longer commutes, except on individual level. They both are symptoms of the same thing: population growth excee

Rising house prices are not really a reason for longer commutes, except on individual level. They both are symptoms of the same thing: population growth exceeds rate at which new housing is being built. And the reason for housing not being built at the pace of population growth is zoning: there's no land where you can legally build. It's a politically created problem. But having 69 % growth of train travel during a 15-year period where population growth was 10 % seems to indicate that the service has scaled well. Sure, train commute may not be fun but at least it makes it possible to have a job.

crdoconnor 10y ago
>Rising house prices are not really a reason for longer commutes, except on individual level. Individuals acting en masse are no longer just individuals. There's no rational reason why people wouldn't respond to prices. >They both are symptoms of the same thing: population growth They are symptoms of four things: * Population growth * A political decision to drive up the price of housing (described as "the wealth effect" by central bankers). * Wealth inequality - when Roman Abramovich occupies a house in central London he takes up 30-60x as much space as the average person. * A political decision to give favorable tax treatment to land ownership leading it to be treated as an asset of a similar class to gold. Meaning it is hoarded. Meaning row upon row of empty new build housing in central London. * Defunding local councils (Happened under Thatcher) meaning they couldn't afford to and eventually stopped building council housing. The forces that created these conditions were neither impersonal or inevitable. They were the result of a succession of more and more right wing governments (both Labour and the Tories) implementing deliberate policy. Zoning is only part of the problem. It's the most promoted problem because it gets in the way of land developers turning a profit. They don't give a shit about wealth inequality or the "wealth effect" and they'd prefer land kept it's favored tax treatment so they can effectively keep selling bars of gold to foreign investors.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  I am astonished by there being row upon row of empty new build housing in central London. Care to show where those are? Overall, I have hard time believing wealth inequality has significant impact on how many people can live in city centers. The number of housing units has a significant impact. Roman Abramovich and Prince Whoever may have more space than they need, but overall impact of the space taken by the very wealthy is small. Their negative impact is probably larger in the jobs that they offer, which then attract new people to move in. And as you can see, London, like many major cities, has population growth. Assuming jobs and other pull factors remain the same, distributing wealth differently would just mean that different people compete of the same housing, but still there are not more houses. House prices going up helps the problem in that there is more incentive to build new houses (and more tax revenue from property taxes). Regarding tax treatment, I expect you would favour a Land Value Tax, and there you've got me with you, along with both leftists and neoliberals.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >I am astonished by there being row upon row of empty new build housing in central London. Care to show where those are? Feast your eyes: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/24/revealed-foreign-buyers-own-two-thirds-of-tower-st-george-wharf-london https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/24/revealed-for... This isn't the only one it's just the famous symbolic one. I've walked past tons of others. Some neighborhoods have basically emptied out because the property owners are mostly or entirely absent. I remember Mayfair and Sloane Sqaure are noticeably much less busy these days than 10 or 20 years ago. >Roman Abramovich and Prince Whoever may have more space than they need, but overall impact of the space taken by the very wealthy is small. It's not small at all. While the wealthy get bigger and bigger spaces the middle classes are squeezed into smaller and smaller spaces. I live in a room in a house because I can't justify the cost of a whole flat. Many more people these days share rooms. Meanwhile the wealthy have townhouses that could easily be split into 4 flats for 4 families and the ultra-wealthy have enormous mansions that could house 50 or 100 people and often live in them two weeks a year. The most extreme example - Buckingham Palace - occupies enough space to house maybe 5,000 people (in skyrises). Anybody who wants to buy (most people don't want to rent for the rest of their lives) is forced further and further out. Hence trains became more "popular". >Their negative impact is probably larger in the jobs that they offer Please. Nobody believes that "job creator" schtick over here. For every Elon Musk creating jobs there's about 1,000 Philip Greens destroying jobs. >And as you can see, London, like many major cities, has population growth. The price rise in the centre cannot solely be accounted for by the rise in the number of polish and Romanian cleaners. They have taken to sharing rooms on the outskirts rather than occupying mansions next to Hyde Park. >Assuming jobs and other pull factors remain the same, distributing wealth differently would just mean that different people compete of the same housing It means different people compete for the same space. It would mean fewer mansions that could house 100 people (they would be converted) and fewer people sharing rooms and much, much less unoccupied housing. >House prices going up helps the problem in that there is more incentive to build new houses It actually doesn't help that much currently. As you can see St George's Wharf was basically turned into the equivalent of unused bars of gold housing almost nobody. >(and more tax revenue from property taxes). Property taxes are part of the problem. They are kept very, very low. If they were raised the tendency to treat property like gold would go down. Fewer empty properties. >Regarding tax treatment, I expect you would favour a Land Value Tax, and there you've got me with you, along with both leftists and neoliberals. Leftists yes. Neoliberals no. Blair & Blairites and the Tories and the rest of the neoliberal establishment have never advocated for it and never will. Corbyn has. Not coincidentally the establishment want to see Corbyn's head on a spike.

crdoconnor 10y ago

>Rising house prices are not really a reason for longer commutes, except on individual level. Individuals acting en masse are no longer just individuals. There's no rational reason why people wouldn't respond to prices. >They both are symptoms of the same thing: population growth They are symptoms of four things: * Population growth * A political decision to drive up the price of housing (described as "the wealth effect" by central bankers). * Wealth inequality - when Roman Abramovich occupies a house in central London he takes up 30-60x as much space as the average person. * A political decision to give favorable tax treatment to land ownership leading it to be treated as an asset of a similar class to gold. Meaning it is hoarded. Meaning row upon row of empty new build housing in central London. * Defunding local councils (Happened under Thatcher) meaning they couldn't afford to and eventually stopped building council housing. The forces that created these conditions were neither impersonal or inevitable. They were the result of a succession of more and more right wing governments (both Labour and the Tories) implementing deliberate policy. Zoning is only part of the problem. It's the most promoted problem because it gets in the way of land developers turning a profit. They don't give a shit about wealth inequality or the "wealth effect" and they'd prefer land kept it's favored tax treatment so they can effectively keep selling bars of gold to foreign investors.

ptaipale 10y ago
I am astonished by there being row upon row of empty new build housing in central London. Care to show where those are? Overall, I have hard time believing wealth inequality has significant impact on how many people can live in city centers. The number of housing units has a significant impact. Roman Abramovich and Prince Whoever may have more space than they need, but overall impact of the space taken by the very wealthy is small. Their negative impact is probably larger in the jobs that they offer, which then attract new people to move in. And as you can see, London, like many major cities, has population growth. Assuming jobs and other pull factors remain the same, distributing wealth differently would just mean that different people compete of the same housing, but still there are not more houses. House prices going up helps the problem in that there is more incentive to build new houses (and more tax revenue from property taxes). Regarding tax treatment, I expect you would favour a Land Value Tax, and there you've got me with you, along with both leftists and neoliberals.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >I am astonished by there being row upon row of empty new build housing in central London. Care to show where those are? Feast your eyes: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/24/revealed-foreign-buyers-own-two-thirds-of-tower-st-george-wharf-london https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/24/revealed-for... This isn't the only one it's just the famous symbolic one. I've walked past tons of others. Some neighborhoods have basically emptied out because the property owners are mostly or entirely absent. I remember Mayfair and Sloane Sqaure are noticeably much less busy these days than 10 or 20 years ago. >Roman Abramovich and Prince Whoever may have more space than they need, but overall impact of the space taken by the very wealthy is small. It's not small at all. While the wealthy get bigger and bigger spaces the middle classes are squeezed into smaller and smaller spaces. I live in a room in a house because I can't justify the cost of a whole flat. Many more people these days share rooms. Meanwhile the wealthy have townhouses that could easily be split into 4 flats for 4 families and the ultra-wealthy have enormous mansions that could house 50 or 100 people and often live in them two weeks a year. The most extreme example - Buckingham Palace - occupies enough space to house maybe 5,000 people (in skyrises). Anybody who wants to buy (most people don't want to rent for the rest of their lives) is forced further and further out. Hence trains became more "popular". >Their negative impact is probably larger in the jobs that they offer Please. Nobody believes that "job creator" schtick over here. For every Elon Musk creating jobs there's about 1,000 Philip Greens destroying jobs. >And as you can see, London, like many major cities, has population growth. The price rise in the centre cannot solely be accounted for by the rise in the number of polish and Romanian cleaners. They have taken to sharing rooms on the outskirts rather than occupying mansions next to Hyde Park. >Assuming jobs and other pull factors remain the same, distributing wealth differently would just mean that different people compete of the same housing It means different people compete for the same space. It would mean fewer mansions that could house 100 people (they would be converted) and fewer people sharing rooms and much, much less unoccupied housing. >House prices going up helps the problem in that there is more incentive to build new houses It actually doesn't help that much currently. As you can see St George's Wharf was basically turned into the equivalent of unused bars of gold housing almost nobody. >(and more tax revenue from property taxes). Property taxes are part of the problem. They are kept very, very low. If they were raised the tendency to treat property like gold would go down. Fewer empty properties. >Regarding tax treatment, I expect you would favour a Land Value Tax, and there you've got me with you, along with both leftists and neoliberals. Leftists yes. Neoliberals no. Blair & Blairites and the Tories and the rest of the neoliberal establishment have never advocated for it and never will. Corbyn has. Not coincidentally the establishment want to see Corbyn's head on a spike.