4 ms·

> Getting a house like my parents or grandparents had would be impossible, and they weren't rich. The two main factors for this are: two-person income househol

> Getting a house like my parents or grandparents had would be impossible, and they weren't rich. The two main factors for this are: two-person income households up-bidding, making it less affordable for single people/mums/dads, and an unsustainable level of immigration. > The new government has said they want to sort out the NIMBY stuff and get Britain building again, let's hope they do. The former factor is just a massive wealth transfer exercise to people who had a house in the 1980s, and is just what we have now - no building can help it any more. The latter is somewhat out-buildable, but our building is not going to hit housing 700k people/year levels. We can't build a city the size of Nottingham every year, and if we did, that would be to maintain the current prices, not to decrease them.

nicoburns 2y ago
> The two main factors for this are: two-person income households up-bidding, making it less affordable for single people/mums/dads, and an unsustainable level of immigration. I feel like you have at least missed two other very significant factors: low interest rates and increased borrowing limits for mortgages driving up the amount people are able to afford and the fact that councils almost completely stopped building houses since the 70s/80s.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  Also increased longevity. Where we once had three generations alive now it is four. Where I live is full of aging single people clinging on to their family homes.
- philipallstar 2y ago
  I agree with you, but I don't think they're absolute fundamental drivers. Low interest rates will drive prices up, but not to the point we have now where nice-sized family houses are divided into multiple small residences and it's still not enough. I haven't tried it, but I suspect if you game-theoried it out with a stable population and low interest rates there would be up-bidding, but everyone would still end up with a house. With a relatively stable population you don't particularly need many new houses to be built (and not by councils in particular).
quietbritishjim 2y ago
> The two main factors for this are: two-person income households up-bidding, making it less affordable for single people/mums/dads, and an unsustainable level of immigration. No, the one main factor is lack of new housing, mainly due to the green belt. On the supply side, natural population growth due to reproduction is surely a bigger driver than immigration. Unless you want some sort of dystopian mass sterilisation policy, or simple a mass slaughter of young people, the only solution is to build more houses. Government policy is unfortunately concentrated on giving first time buyers access to bigger mortgages, but of course this is just going to drive up prices. In a free market, that would incentivise house builders to build more houses, but with no land to build them on there's no way for that to happen.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Reproduction is below replacement across the entire developed world. (Edit: Israel has 2.9 TFR but that's an exceptional case, and Saudi has 2.3 but that's more of an emerging market)
- philipallstar 2y ago
  > On the supply side, natural population growth due to reproduction is surely a bigger driver than immigration This is from ONS[0]: > Natural change has previously been the main driver of UK population growth. However, since the 1990s, the influence of net migration has increased, becoming the main source of growth. The UK is not a devoping country. It would have a very stable population, or even a fractionally declining population, without net migration. And house prices for young people would look very different. [0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/2020#Net+migration https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
  - quietbritishjim 2y ago
    Hmm, I'll admit I'm wrong. Thanks for the source. I do think there's a cause and effect reversal though: if housing supply was plentiful enough to allow young people to move out as early as boomers could, there would quite likely be much higher natural population growth. (i,e. it's hard for people in their twenties to have relationships when both sides are living at home)
schnitzelstoat 2y ago
After the war, entirely new towns were built and cities massively developed and expanded. We've done it before and we could do it again. The problem is that it has opposition from the Right who wish to preserve small villages or simply increase property values and opposition from the Left who see economic growth as a dirty word and development as gentrification and environmentally destructive. But if we want a better future for our children and grandchildren, it must be done.
- modo_mario 2y ago
  Alternatively and far more likely and simply one curbs migration. Allowing housing prices to not be buffered up by the promise of eternal population growth and conversely creating less downward pressure on local birth rates.
ben_w 2y ago
> but our building is not going to hit housing 700k people/year levels. We can't build a city the size of Nottingham every year "Will not" != "can't". While I agree it's unlikely that the UK government will, such a building policy absolutely can be made to happen. > if we did, that would be to maintain the current prices, not to decrease them. Depends on the policy. UK used to have local councils building and owning property specifically to be cheap enough for working people to afford. This has different incentives than getting the same number of units built by private investors.
globular-toast 2y ago
> two-person income households up-bidding, making it less affordable for single people/mums/dads It should also be noted that two-person incomes are much more tax efficient than single because the tax bands are per-person rather than per-couple. So two people each on median pay (37k) would take home 60k between them. A single earner would have to be on almost 90k to take home the same amount, which would make them a top 5% earner.
- philipallstar 2y ago
  Yes, it's inbelievably harder to do things as a single person or a single-earner family than it used to be. There's just no hope for the majority of earners. No hope at all.

nicoburns 2y ago

> The two main factors for this are: two-person income households up-bidding, making it less affordable for single people/mums/dads, and an unsustainable level of immigration. I feel like you have at least missed two other very significant factors: low interest rates and increased borrowing limits for mortgages driving up the amount people are able to afford and the fact that councils almost completely stopped building houses since the 70s/80s.

tonyedgecombe 2y ago
Also increased longevity. Where we once had three generations alive now it is four. Where I live is full of aging single people clinging on to their family homes.
philipallstar 2y ago
I agree with you, but I don't think they're absolute fundamental drivers. Low interest rates will drive prices up, but not to the point we have now where nice-sized family houses are divided into multiple small residences and it's still not enough. I haven't tried it, but I suspect if you game-theoried it out with a stable population and low interest rates there would be up-bidding, but everyone would still end up with a house. With a relatively stable population you don't particularly need many new houses to be built (and not by councils in particular).

quietbritishjim 2y ago

> The two main factors for this are: two-person income households up-bidding, making it less affordable for single people/mums/dads, and an unsustainable level of immigration. No, the one main factor is lack of new housing, mainly due to the green belt. On the supply side, natural population growth due to reproduction is surely a bigger driver than immigration. Unless you want some sort of dystopian mass sterilisation policy, or simple a mass slaughter of young people, the only solution is to build more houses. Government policy is unfortunately concentrated on giving first time buyers access to bigger mortgages, but of course this is just going to drive up prices. In a free market, that would incentivise house builders to build more houses, but with no land to build them on there's no way for that to happen.

HPsquared 2y ago
Reproduction is below replacement across the entire developed world. (Edit: Israel has 2.9 TFR but that's an exceptional case, and Saudi has 2.3 but that's more of an emerging market)
philipallstar 2y ago
> On the supply side, natural population growth due to reproduction is surely a bigger driver than immigration This is from ONS[0]: > Natural change has previously been the main driver of UK population growth. However, since the 1990s, the influence of net migration has increased, becoming the main source of growth. The UK is not a devoping country. It would have a very stable population, or even a fractionally declining population, without net migration. And house prices for young people would look very different. [0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/2020#Net+migration https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...
- quietbritishjim 2y ago
  Hmm, I'll admit I'm wrong. Thanks for the source. I do think there's a cause and effect reversal though: if housing supply was plentiful enough to allow young people to move out as early as boomers could, there would quite likely be much higher natural population growth. (i,e. it's hard for people in their twenties to have relationships when both sides are living at home)

schnitzelstoat 2y ago

After the war, entirely new towns were built and cities massively developed and expanded. We've done it before and we could do it again. The problem is that it has opposition from the Right who wish to preserve small villages or simply increase property values and opposition from the Left who see economic growth as a dirty word and development as gentrification and environmentally destructive. But if we want a better future for our children and grandchildren, it must be done.

modo_mario 2y ago
Alternatively and far more likely and simply one curbs migration. Allowing housing prices to not be buffered up by the promise of eternal population growth and conversely creating less downward pressure on local birth rates.

ben_w 2y ago

> but our building is not going to hit housing 700k people/year levels. We can't build a city the size of Nottingham every year "Will not" != "can't". While I agree it's unlikely that the UK government will, such a building policy absolutely can be made to happen. > if we did, that would be to maintain the current prices, not to decrease them. Depends on the policy. UK used to have local councils building and owning property specifically to be cheap enough for working people to afford. This has different incentives than getting the same number of units built by private investors.

globular-toast 2y ago

> two-person income households up-bidding, making it less affordable for single people/mums/dads It should also be noted that two-person incomes are much more tax efficient than single because the tax bands are per-person rather than per-couple. So two people each on median pay (37k) would take home 60k between them. A single earner would have to be on almost 90k to take home the same amount, which would make them a top 5% earner.

philipallstar 2y ago
Yes, it's inbelievably harder to do things as a single person or a single-earner family than it used to be. There's just no hope for the majority of earners. No hope at all.