3 ms·

Net migration of 600k/year also affects property prices.

pydry 3y ago
The UK could very well easily up with net emigration and still have rising rents. New York in the 1950s ran a very high level of immigration (GIs returning from the war) and had the strongest rent controls it ever had. Neither property prices nor rents rose very much. London only passed the population threshold it reached in 1939 in 2015 - LONG after rents and property prices had been jacked up to eye watering levels. Building social housing isn't hard, it just requires a government that operates on behalf of the working classes (who want a roof over their head) rather than land owners (who will try to stymie that process in every way they can in order to jack up rents and asset valuations).
- gadders 3y ago
  Well, yes, I guess we could grow our population indefinitely until we tarmac over all of the UK to house them.
  - pydry 3y ago
    Land usage is horrendously inefficient in the UK and that is largely by design. Immigration might exacerbate rent rises all other things being equal but as I said it could just as easily happen with net migration too. With Singapore you could argue that immigration is a key issue with their rising rents because proportionally it's so much higher than the UK, they make very efficient use of land and they are very much more space deprived. In the UK it's not an issue with immigration because other variables override it. That is unless somebody is really in the mood to indirectly take the issue to a xenophobic or a racist place on behalf of a few populist property oligarchs looking for an easy scapegoat.
    - gadders 3y ago
      I'm not sure what distinction you are drawing between "immigration" and "net migration"? Net Migration is just all the people that have immigrated (moved to) to a country minus all those that have emigrated (left) a country. That is the figure of 600k for the UK currently. >> In the UK it's not an issue with immigration because other variables override it. Care to name some? I guess you could say that UK housing is "inefficient" but again, I'm not sure making people live in tower blocks just so that more people from other countries can move here is all that fair of a solution, or if it is what people are proposing at least make it explicit and have it as a party policy that people can vote on. TBH property oligarchs would favour high migration because of the effect it has on property values and rents.
      - pydry 3y ago
        >I'm not sure making people live in tower blocks just so that more people from other countries can move here is all that fair of a solution The only forcing going on in London is handing over between 30-50% of your paycheck just to have a roof over your head. Nobody would have to be forced to live in an apartment. You just have to build them and people will rent or buy them. As I said, unless you want to take this to a racist place it's not an issue of immigration. Not in the UK anyway. >TBH property oligarchs would favour high migration Yes, thats why the Tory party effectively used xenophobia to garner votes while simultaneously increasing net migration to the UK. It was all about throwing a racist bone to their voters who were heavily swayed towards UKIP before betraying them.
        gadders 3y ago
        Not wanting high net migration is not xenophobic though, however much you throw out your ad hominem attacks.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> 600k/year That makes it sound as if it's 600k each year. It isn't - that's the figure for 2022. The figure for 2019 is 180k. Supposedly, the 2022 figure is inflated by official programmes encouraging immigration from Hong Kong and Ukraine.
- gadders 3y ago
  2021 was 488k. I look forward to the figure for 2024 being -800k or so to even things out but I won't hold my breath.

The UK could very well easily up with net emigration and still have rising rents. New York in the 1950s ran a very high level of immigration (GIs returning from the war) and had the strongest rent controls it ever had. Neither property prices nor rents rose very much. London only passed the population threshold it reached in 1939 in 2015 - LONG after rents and property prices had been jacked up to eye watering levels. Building social housing isn't hard, it just requires a government that operates on behalf of the working classes (who want a roof over their head) rather than land owners (who will try to stymie that process in every way they can in order to jack up rents and asset valuations).

gadders 3y ago
Well, yes, I guess we could grow our population indefinitely until we tarmac over all of the UK to house them.
- pydry 3y ago
  Land usage is horrendously inefficient in the UK and that is largely by design. Immigration might exacerbate rent rises all other things being equal but as I said it could just as easily happen with net migration too. With Singapore you could argue that immigration is a key issue with their rising rents because proportionally it's so much higher than the UK, they make very efficient use of land and they are very much more space deprived. In the UK it's not an issue with immigration because other variables override it. That is unless somebody is really in the mood to indirectly take the issue to a xenophobic or a racist place on behalf of a few populist property oligarchs looking for an easy scapegoat.
  - gadders 3y ago
    I'm not sure what distinction you are drawing between "immigration" and "net migration"? Net Migration is just all the people that have immigrated (moved to) to a country minus all those that have emigrated (left) a country. That is the figure of 600k for the UK currently. >> In the UK it's not an issue with immigration because other variables override it. Care to name some? I guess you could say that UK housing is "inefficient" but again, I'm not sure making people live in tower blocks just so that more people from other countries can move here is all that fair of a solution, or if it is what people are proposing at least make it explicit and have it as a party policy that people can vote on. TBH property oligarchs would favour high migration because of the effect it has on property values and rents.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >I'm not sure making people live in tower blocks just so that more people from other countries can move here is all that fair of a solution The only forcing going on in London is handing over between 30-50% of your paycheck just to have a roof over your head. Nobody would have to be forced to live in an apartment. You just have to build them and people will rent or buy them. As I said, unless you want to take this to a racist place it's not an issue of immigration. Not in the UK anyway. >TBH property oligarchs would favour high migration Yes, thats why the Tory party effectively used xenophobia to garner votes while simultaneously increasing net migration to the UK. It was all about throwing a racist bone to their voters who were heavily swayed towards UKIP before betraying them.
      - gadders 3y ago
        Not wanting high net migration is not xenophobic though, however much you throw out your ad hominem attacks.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> 600k/year That makes it sound as if it's 600k each year. It isn't - that's the figure for 2022. The figure for 2019 is 180k. Supposedly, the 2022 figure is inflated by official programmes encouraging immigration from Hong Kong and Ukraine.

gadders 3y ago
2021 was 488k. I look forward to the figure for 2024 being -800k or so to even things out but I won't hold my breath.