6 ms·

"Normal" is hilarious in context. In the UK we have a housing crisis so acute that even "well paid" professionals are paying 50%+ of income on a 1 bedroom flat

"Normal" is hilarious in context. In the UK we have a housing crisis so acute that even "well paid" professionals are paying 50%+ of income on a 1 bedroom flat. We have a government that sees the unemployed as vermin, rats to be extinguished. A government with a puritanical "work will set you free" mindset. And overlaid on that, in the past decade we've had the Internet go mainstream. Working class kids now have an acute awareness of what the other half is up to. The whole model is bloody broken. It makes me depressed that people even engage with this tripe. It's like having a discussion about how best to cook a slab of meat that's been left out for months and has gone fuzzy and green. We can't go on with this nonsense class based serfs and lords stuff. Really, we can't. It's not just bad for the squeezed middle, it's bankrupt from top to bottom. People working in shit jobs for shit pay to die early. Middle class kids buckling themselves in with the student debt and the mortgage to spend their entire adult life under the heel of the capitalists. And now they _know_ it. It's not just 'how life is', any more. It's how life was made to be for them, by those. We don't need kebabs or movies or dry cleaning. This stuff exists and these people are working in crap conditions for the sole reason that we decided as a society that people don't deserve the basics unless they submit to the machine. It can be fixed. The difference between a landlord and a tenant is a piece of paper or a few bytes in a database.... but we cling on to the model. When and how will it end?

jseliger 11y ago
In the UK we have a housing crisis so acute that even "well paid" professionals are paying 50%+ of income on a 1 bedroom flat. [...] When and how will it end? The UK makes it prohibitively hard to build new housing, and, consequently, in the face of a rising population and not-rising housing supply, prices rise. It will end when the UK liberalizes building: http://www.buzzfeed.com/dlknowles/britains-dysfunctional-property-market-in-gi-fm44#.jqnnnMzZml http://www.buzzfeed.com/dlknowles/britains-dysfunctional-pro... .
- myblake 11y ago
  It's like San Francisco only way bigger!
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  It sounds like you think you're disagreeing with him, yet the housing crisis, as you say, is due to limited building, and lots of MPs have property portfolios which more building will threaten the value of. Meanwhile those who already own large properties are happy to see wealth transferred by this arrangement from the young and poor to the old and wealthy and reliably vote for it to continue (while complaining about 'subsidy junkies' who want something for nothing). So a simple problem to solve, except for the fact that its being intentionally inflicted on people by those with power for their financial benefit.
- asuffield 11y ago
  The key detail not mentioned in that article is that this is primarily an issue of London, which the rest of the country does not share. Outside London, house prices are a lot more reasonable and there isn't really a major shortage. The planning permission details in there appear to be a distraction - release of low-value "green belt" land, like that pictured in the article, does happen where needed. The big problem in London is that any proposal for new construction will be met with fierce opposition from nearby homeowners on the grounds of congested roads, limited parking space, overuse of local amenities, and lowering the value of their own properties.
M8 11y ago
Quitting EU could help with the property market. EU immigration is out of any control.
redml 11y ago
The main problem is that we're way too productive for the amount of people we have. The best solution in my mind is cut the average job back from 8 hours to 4-6 hours, and have some very strict rules about overtime. You basically have to make it so its worth it for the larger companies to hire more people rather than squeeze what they can out of their exisiting workforce.
- collyw 11y ago
  "The main problem is that we're way too productive for the amount of people we have." Look around you, there is plenty of work that needs done. Doctors and nurses are overworked (so am I in my opinion). The streets could be cleaner. Public services are getting crapper and crapper (back in the 70's bin men came around once a week, walked up your drive and collected the bins, nowadays you have to do take it to the correct position outside your home). Teachers complain about workload. Every time you have to wait in a queue, think if that would be there if there were more staff. Its a complete misallocation of resources.
  - M8 11y ago
    "Every time you have to wait in a queue, think if that would be there if there were more staff." Luckily we are getting more and more of automated self-service tills. No humans, no drama.
    - collyw 11y ago
      More work for you.
    - bluetomcat 11y ago
      The problem is that under the current system, every time a job is eliminated due to technological and productivity gains, another useless one is created, which, in turn eats out the productivity that was gained from eliminating the first one. Politicians should stop looking at "job creation" as a means of keeping people busy and consuming. A job should be done only if the society benefits from it.
  - 11y ago
waps 11y ago
> When and how will it end? The situation is caused by the government attempting to control lending cost. This has happened before and it will happen again. Essentially governments are currently attempting to create a massive wealth transfer from, well mostly everybody, to their favored causes (firstly to government spending, and second to property values, through banks). To do this they are taking out what effectively are huge loans. So central banks are painting themselves into a corner. They are making it extremely easy for the government to borrow. Why ? Because this will make it easy for those governments to pay off the debt burden that has become too much for them. Of course governments aren't paying off debts at all, rather they are increasing spending (look past the austerity rhetoric to the actual numbers : taking into account that their debt servicing cost is decreasing by a LOT, they're actually increasing spending by over 10%, all of them). This makes those debt burdens a lot worse, because that cheap borrowing cost is temporary. Debt that is serviceable at 0.2% interest costs double as much in debt service at 0.4%, which is a tiny change. So the situation becomes more and more unstable. This could last a few years though. So what will happen next. Most/all of the governments in Europe (and the US) will likely end up in the position Greece was in 2 years ago, or worse, due to a tiny rise in interest rates. Then they will default on at least some debt. This will cause an enormous spike in interest rates, so it will become prohibitively expensive for governments to loan money at all, and they will lose the ability to rollover debt. So they either come up with 100% of GDP without loaning money (ie. massive inflation), or they default on more debt. This will crash banks (but don't worry : government guarantees have been gutted so it won't cost the government anything. Google "bail-in legislation"). At this point interest rates will shoot up to 10%, maybe 20%. All those investment properties in Londen will suddenly be extremely costly to their investors (their monthly payments will double or triple in a year), and go on the market (the problem is not too little housing, the problem is that for the moment it's too valuable to invest in real estate, given the rising prices). And then we're back in 1992 or so. > buckling themselves in with the student debt and the mortgage to spend their entire adult life under the heel of the capitalists. Sadly, you can be assured of one thing : when this story has played out, you'll be worse off than today, for at least a few years. And God help those with student debt, or even worse : those with student debt backed by a state (US, UK, Australia, Netherlands all have large amounts of people with lots of student debt backed by the state).
Ntrails 11y ago
We have a government that sees the unemployed as vermin, rats to be extinguished. A government with a puritanical "work will set you free" mindset. I'll give you that, as a somewhat tinted perspective on the governments views, but I'm not sure where you want to go with it? Every government aims for minimal unemployment, it's one of their key tasks - to get people into work. I'm not sure you'll find anyone willing to say "You can work if you want to [you can leave your old friends behind], otherwise here just live on other peoples taxes". People working in shit jobs for shit pay to die early Most people work jobs that they do not enjoy. Working is a means to an end, survival. Please do define for me a system where the jobs are all lovely and nobody has to do anything they don't want to do. There seems to be this theory that everyone should be happy, it's pure myth. Life never has worked like that for the majority of the population in any historical system.
- slirpee 11y ago
  > Working is a means to an end, survival. Ugh. I find this idea very distasteful. Admittedly my view is tainted by depression, so it hurts extra to be told my only reason to do work I don't like, is so I can keep experiencing a life I don't like. (But, I am apparently still here because I don't entirely dislike it, and/or have hope it will get better.) I do recognize being upset about this may be seen as childish, naive, or entitled, but... > There seems to be this theory that everyone should be happy, it's pure myth. Life never has worked like that for the majority of the population in any historical system. I think you're missing the point, or at least something I think about. We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived? You "did your time", so every other human after you should have to as well? I don't know what the point of progress as a society is, if it does not result in improving the happiness of the people. Now, if you want to argue that unpleasant but necessary work actually improves happiness, or that people need to find their own happiness through spiritualism/religion etc., I could see some merit. But I'm reading basically "Life will always be shitty, shut up and get back to work so you can survive another day of your shitty life." Which seems like pointless, soul-crushing, circular logic I'm not willing to accept. Which again, may be naivety/depression on my part.

jseliger 11y ago

In the UK we have a housing crisis so acute that even "well paid" professionals are paying 50%+ of income on a 1 bedroom flat. [...] When and how will it end? The UK makes it prohibitively hard to build new housing, and, consequently, in the face of a rising population and not-rising housing supply, prices rise. It will end when the UK liberalizes building: http://www.buzzfeed.com/dlknowles/britains-dysfunctional-property-market-in-gi-fm44#.jqnnnMzZml http://www.buzzfeed.com/dlknowles/britains-dysfunctional-pro... .

myblake 11y ago
It's like San Francisco only way bigger!
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
It sounds like you think you're disagreeing with him, yet the housing crisis, as you say, is due to limited building, and lots of MPs have property portfolios which more building will threaten the value of. Meanwhile those who already own large properties are happy to see wealth transferred by this arrangement from the young and poor to the old and wealthy and reliably vote for it to continue (while complaining about 'subsidy junkies' who want something for nothing). So a simple problem to solve, except for the fact that its being intentionally inflicted on people by those with power for their financial benefit.
asuffield 11y ago
The key detail not mentioned in that article is that this is primarily an issue of London, which the rest of the country does not share. Outside London, house prices are a lot more reasonable and there isn't really a major shortage. The planning permission details in there appear to be a distraction - release of low-value "green belt" land, like that pictured in the article, does happen where needed. The big problem in London is that any proposal for new construction will be met with fierce opposition from nearby homeowners on the grounds of congested roads, limited parking space, overuse of local amenities, and lowering the value of their own properties.

M8 11y ago

Quitting EU could help with the property market. EU immigration is out of any control.

redml 11y ago

The main problem is that we're way too productive for the amount of people we have. The best solution in my mind is cut the average job back from 8 hours to 4-6 hours, and have some very strict rules about overtime. You basically have to make it so its worth it for the larger companies to hire more people rather than squeeze what they can out of their exisiting workforce.

collyw 11y ago
"The main problem is that we're way too productive for the amount of people we have." Look around you, there is plenty of work that needs done. Doctors and nurses are overworked (so am I in my opinion). The streets could be cleaner. Public services are getting crapper and crapper (back in the 70's bin men came around once a week, walked up your drive and collected the bins, nowadays you have to do take it to the correct position outside your home). Teachers complain about workload. Every time you have to wait in a queue, think if that would be there if there were more staff. Its a complete misallocation of resources.
- M8 11y ago
  "Every time you have to wait in a queue, think if that would be there if there were more staff." Luckily we are getting more and more of automated self-service tills. No humans, no drama.
  - collyw 11y ago
    More work for you.
  - bluetomcat 11y ago
    The problem is that under the current system, every time a job is eliminated due to technological and productivity gains, another useless one is created, which, in turn eats out the productivity that was gained from eliminating the first one. Politicians should stop looking at "job creation" as a means of keeping people busy and consuming. A job should be done only if the society benefits from it.
- 11y ago

waps 11y ago

> When and how will it end? The situation is caused by the government attempting to control lending cost. This has happened before and it will happen again. Essentially governments are currently attempting to create a massive wealth transfer from, well mostly everybody, to their favored causes (firstly to government spending, and second to property values, through banks). To do this they are taking out what effectively are huge loans. So central banks are painting themselves into a corner. They are making it extremely easy for the government to borrow. Why ? Because this will make it easy for those governments to pay off the debt burden that has become too much for them. Of course governments aren't paying off debts at all, rather they are increasing spending (look past the austerity rhetoric to the actual numbers : taking into account that their debt servicing cost is decreasing by a LOT, they're actually increasing spending by over 10%, all of them). This makes those debt burdens a lot worse, because that cheap borrowing cost is temporary. Debt that is serviceable at 0.2% interest costs double as much in debt service at 0.4%, which is a tiny change. So the situation becomes more and more unstable. This could last a few years though. So what will happen next. Most/all of the governments in Europe (and the US) will likely end up in the position Greece was in 2 years ago, or worse, due to a tiny rise in interest rates. Then they will default on at least some debt. This will cause an enormous spike in interest rates, so it will become prohibitively expensive for governments to loan money at all, and they will lose the ability to rollover debt. So they either come up with 100% of GDP without loaning money (ie. massive inflation), or they default on more debt. This will crash banks (but don't worry : government guarantees have been gutted so it won't cost the government anything. Google "bail-in legislation"). At this point interest rates will shoot up to 10%, maybe 20%. All those investment properties in Londen will suddenly be extremely costly to their investors (their monthly payments will double or triple in a year), and go on the market (the problem is not too little housing, the problem is that for the moment it's too valuable to invest in real estate, given the rising prices). And then we're back in 1992 or so. > buckling themselves in with the student debt and the mortgage to spend their entire adult life under the heel of the capitalists. Sadly, you can be assured of one thing : when this story has played out, you'll be worse off than today, for at least a few years. And God help those with student debt, or even worse : those with student debt backed by a state (US, UK, Australia, Netherlands all have large amounts of people with lots of student debt backed by the state).

Ntrails 11y ago

We have a government that sees the unemployed as vermin, rats to be extinguished. A government with a puritanical "work will set you free" mindset. I'll give you that, as a somewhat tinted perspective on the governments views, but I'm not sure where you want to go with it? Every government aims for minimal unemployment, it's one of their key tasks - to get people into work. I'm not sure you'll find anyone willing to say "You can work if you want to [you can leave your old friends behind], otherwise here just live on other peoples taxes". People working in shit jobs for shit pay to die early Most people work jobs that they do not enjoy. Working is a means to an end, survival. Please do define for me a system where the jobs are all lovely and nobody has to do anything they don't want to do. There seems to be this theory that everyone should be happy, it's pure myth. Life never has worked like that for the majority of the population in any historical system.

slirpee 11y ago
> Working is a means to an end, survival. Ugh. I find this idea very distasteful. Admittedly my view is tainted by depression, so it hurts extra to be told my only reason to do work I don't like, is so I can keep experiencing a life I don't like. (But, I am apparently still here because I don't entirely dislike it, and/or have hope it will get better.) I do recognize being upset about this may be seen as childish, naive, or entitled, but... > There seems to be this theory that everyone should be happy, it's pure myth. Life never has worked like that for the majority of the population in any historical system. I think you're missing the point, or at least something I think about. We're living in an increasingly efficient, automated, bountiful, and wealthy world; why do we have to stick to any "historical system" that sucked for 99.9% of all humans who have ever lived? You "did your time", so every other human after you should have to as well? I don't know what the point of progress as a society is, if it does not result in improving the happiness of the people. Now, if you want to argue that unpleasant but necessary work actually improves happiness, or that people need to find their own happiness through spiritualism/religion etc., I could see some merit. But I'm reading basically "Life will always be shitty, shut up and get back to work so you can survive another day of your shitty life." Which seems like pointless, soul-crushing, circular logic I'm not willing to accept. Which again, may be naivety/depression on my part.