Boomer life according to the economist

[BandOfBrothers]

Condi said:

havoc said:

BandOfBrothers said:

I'll be damned if I'm going somewhere where it's noticeably worse.

I think Condi's point is it ISN'T noticeably worse.

8% more rain is hardly noticeable.

Average temp you probably would notice, but I'd venture it's more the distinct seasons in Scotland you'd notice.

Quite.

My point was that the differences between the rain and temperature are NOT the reason people live in the south rather than Scotland!! Access to good jobs and the social scene is going to be far more important than 8% more rain per year and less than 2 degrees average temperature difference.

Otherwise everyone would live in Kent, Devon, Sussex etc, whereas there are areas on the south coast which are very reasonably priced and much cheaper than parts of Edinburgh despite having warmer and drier conditions.

It's a farcical argument that people chose where they live based solely on (perceived!) weather conditions.

I'm less I'm mistaken, Edinburgh isn't the same as the whole of Scotland?

Talk about cherry picking...

[Portia5]

Condi said:

Portia5 said:

However, to prevent 'bad' lanldords I'd also suggest a strong focus on tenants' security of tenure and repairing standards.

Isn't this exactly why they introduced the legislation last year to make things less appealing for private landlords?

Far easier to enforce standards against a smaller number of large companies than do the same with thousands if not hundreds of thousands of unlicenced, largely unregistered individuals.

The effect of the legislation introduced - in Scotland especially but also rUK - has had completely the opposite effect on rents. The main so-called "unintended consequence" has been the movement of rent sky-high whilst (in Scotland) the silly approach to rent control has made some tenants 'rent prisoners'. Silly eviction procedures throughout the UK benefit nobody apart from miscreant tenants.

Legislation needs to be well researched and sensible. Who's going to do that? Rishi Sunak? Michael Gove? Patrick Harvie? Humza Yousaf?

But what's needed right now is a supply to more than match demand which requires landlord friendly legislation, not silly attempts at the opposite.

[turbobloke]

BandOfBrothers said:

Condi said:

havoc said:

BandOfBrothers said:

I'll be damned if I'm going somewhere where it's noticeably worse.

I think Condi's point is it ISN'T noticeably worse.

8% more rain is hardly noticeable.

Average temp you probably would notice, but I'd venture it's more the distinct seasons in Scotland you'd notice.

Quite.

My point was that the differences between the rain and temperature are NOT the reason people live in the south rather than Scotland!! Access to good jobs and the social scene is going to be far more important than 8% more rain per year and less than 2 degrees average temperature difference.

Otherwise everyone would live in Kent, Devon, Sussex etc, whereas there are areas on the south coast which are very reasonably priced and much cheaper than parts of Edinburgh despite having warmer and drier conditions.

It's a farcical argument that people chose where they live based solely on (perceived!) weather conditions.

I'm less I'm mistaken, Edinburgh isn't the same as the whole of Scotland?

Talk about cherry picking...

Mystic Met is hardly diamond geezerville but they've got Condi's measure.

Do we know how many boomers have - so far - retired to the balmy climes of Scotland? Even Skegness is far enough north to be "bracing" unlike Bournemouth or Torquay or even Southend. Could Scotland cope with more?

[havoc]

BandOfBrothers said:

I'm less I'm mistaken, Edinburgh isn't the same as the whole of Scotland?

Talk about cherry picking...

And London isn't the whole of the SE of England, but that doesn't stop some posters on here either.

Portia5 said:

Did any of the wise aware economists on here work out HOW TO HUGELY INCREASE THE SUPPLY of available private rental sector properties as a means to reducing rents to manageable levels especially for those on average or below average wages ?

There's only one real route - Council House building. Get the public sector involved. The private sector will always react to maximise profits (or at least ROI), as that's what drives the market. Anyone who thinks landlords are in it out of the kindness of their heart is a muppet - there's a reason that "profession" was soundly looked down upon by society in the 19th century.


Agree on the comments ref. legislation though - there needs to be a reasonable legislative environment, but equally there HAVE to be checks and balances over both ahole landlords (plenty of them around) AND ahole tenants (ditto). Sadly society has progressed a long way past the point that people could be trusted to be fair and reasonable to each other (if it ever really happened).

[Portia5]

havoc said:

Portia5 said:

Did any of the wise aware economists on here work out HOW TO HUGELY INCREASE THE SUPPLY of available private rental sector properties as a means to reducing rents to manageable levels especially for those on average or below average wages ?

There's only one real route - Council House building. Get the public sector involved. .

How on earth is building council houses going to increase the supply of PRIVATE SECTOR PROPERTIES?

Silly idea.

[Condi]

BandOfBrothers said:

I'm less I'm mistaken, Edinburgh isn't the same as the whole of Scotland?

Talk about cherry picking...

Cherry picking? Not really, I chose the capital city and where a large percentage of people are, nearly 1m people live in or around Edinburgh.

There are drier places than Edinburgh in Scotland just are there are wetter places than London in England. Manchester for example has 1197mm of rain a year, over 50% more than Edinburgh and even on the south coast Exeter has more rain than Edinburgh. Dundee and Perth have less rain than Edinburgh, while Glasgow has more.

What location would you have preferred me to use, if not the capital city and one of the more populated regions?

turbobloke said:

Do we know how many boomers have - so far - retired to the balmy climes of Scotland? Even Skegness is far enough north to be "bracing" unlike Bournemouth or Torquay or even Southend. Could Scotland cope with more?

How many boomers move to retire anywhere? Most live where they have always lived.

I highly doubt many people are retiring to the SE, given the high cost of houses, but if you're going to say they move to the SW - Devon, Cornwall etc, then they're moving somewhere it rains more than Edinburgh and you'll torpedo your own argument!

[Tigerj]

havoc said:

There's only one real route - Council House building. Get the public sector involved. The private sector will always react to maximise profits (or at least ROI), as that's what drives the market. Anyone who thinks landlords are in it out of the kindness of their heart is a muppet - there's a reason that "profession" was soundly looked down upon by society in the 19th century.


Agree on the comments ref. legislation though - there needs to be a reasonable legislative environment, but equally there HAVE to be checks and balances over both ahole landlords (plenty of them around) AND ahole tenants (ditto). Sadly society has progressed a long way past the point that people could be trusted to be fair and reasonable to each other (if it ever really happened).

One of the issues with council housing, is the type of housing they want to build as it’s most efficient, medium to high density stuff. Is not what people want.

[bristolracer]

The biggest legacies that the boomers (of which I am one) have left behind are:
An environmental disaster of a planet and
A divided and fragmented world that is continuously one step away from major world conflict.
The ponzi housing market is just a mechanism to keep the wasteful consumerism going and to provide money for arms so that we can keep the poor nations under the cosh.

I would like to think my grandkids will have it better than me, but I really have little hope of that happening.

[borcy]

Portia5 said:

havoc said:

Portia5 said:

Did any of the wise aware economists on here work out HOW TO HUGELY INCREASE THE SUPPLY of available private rental sector properties as a means to reducing rents to manageable levels especially for those on average or below average wages ?

There's only one real route - Council House building. Get the public sector involved. .

How on earth is building council houses going to increase the supply of PRIVATE SECTOR PROPERTIES?

Silly idea.

I think the point is it would increase rental properties in general, regardless of who owns them.

[Steve H]

bristolracer said:

The biggest legacies that the boomers (of which I am one) have left behind are:
An environmental disaster of a planet and
A divided and fragmented world that is continuously one step away from major world conflict.
The ponzi housing market is just a mechanism to keep the wasteful consumerism going and to provide money for arms so that we can keep the poor nations under the cosh.

I would like to think my grandkids will have it better than me, but I really have little hope of that happening.

Worth remembering that people have been screwing up the environment since Victorian times, we just got a head start on the rest of the world on that one.

And there hasn’t been a world war since before the boomers were born. For sure there is always conflict somewhere but prior to Ww1/2 there was usually plenty of countries fighting each other, they just weren’t capable of a war that reached round the globe at that time.

[Portia5]

borcy said:

Portia5 said:

havoc said:

Portia5 said:

Did any of the wise aware economists on here work out HOW TO HUGELY INCREASE THE SUPPLY of available private rental sector properties as a means to reducing rents to manageable levels especially for those on average or below average wages ?

There's only one real route - Council House building. Get the public sector involved. .

How on earth is building council houses going to increase the supply of PRIVATE SECTOR PROPERTIES?

Silly idea.

I think the point is it would increase rental properties in general, regardless of who owns them.

So why bother BUILDING them when they're there already, just waiting for legislative changes to encourage landlords into utilising them (as they have done since the stone age).

As a chap called Derek Hatton discovered some decades ago, it's all very well building houses if you've got (or can grift) the money to do so, but you also need to build in a supporting maintenance, management and infrastructure system to go along with them. If you don't, all you're building is a colossal problem, not a 'housing dream'.

Right now most councils are squealing about not having enough money to provide basic essential services never mind fanciful schemes to build dwellings + infrastructure en masse.

Everyone in the property letting business knows that discouraging landlords has created a major rental housing crisis. The stupid legislation actually hugely enhances the profits of those who can adapt and survive this silly discouragement. Ok it's embarrassing to have to accept that the crisis is only recoverable by accepting stupid things have been done which need UNdone, and there really isn't a choice.

Edited by Portia5 on Saturday 20th April 20:36

[havoc]

Portia5 said:

So why bother BUILDING them when they're there already, just waiting for legislative changes to encourage landlords into utilising them (as they have done since the stone age).

As a chap called Derek Hatton discovered some decades ago, it's all very well building houses if you've got (or can grift) the money to do so, but you also need to build in a supporting maintenance, management and infrastructure system to go along with them. If you don't, all you're building is a colossal problem, not a 'housing dream'.

Right now most councils are squealing about not having enough money to provide basic essential services never mind fanciful schemes to build dwellings + infrastructure en masse.

Everyone in the property letting business knows that discouraging landlords has created a major rental housing crisis. The stupid legislation actually hugely enhances the profits of those who can adapt and survive this silly discouragement. Ok it's embarrassing to have to accept that the crisis is only recoverable by accepting stupid things have been done which need UNdone, but there really isn't a choice.

Are you REALLY suggesting that private-sector landlords - who are making a PROFIT - can sort all those things out through subcontractors but a council - who don't need to make a profit and therefore will have more cash to pay for all the supporting services - can't sort them out?

This is the same story that was used to justify privatisation of all the utilities, and look how well that's turned out!?!

Council-provided housing isn't free. Either the renter pays the council instead of a private-sector landlord, or the council pays itself instead of a private sector landlord. The economics of this are so simple a schoolchild could grasp it.


fk me, if this is the standard of 'reasoned' argument on here then no wonder the UK's in trouble...

[borcy]

Portia5 said:

borcy said:

Portia5 said:

havoc said:

Portia5 said:

Did any of the wise aware economists on here work out HOW TO HUGELY INCREASE THE SUPPLY of available private rental sector properties as a means to reducing rents to manageable levels especially for those on average or below average wages ?

There's only one real route - Council House building. Get the public sector involved. .

How on earth is building council houses going to increase the supply of PRIVATE SECTOR PROPERTIES?

Silly idea.

I think the point is it would increase rental properties in general, regardless of who owns them.

So why bother BUILDING them when they're there already, [/footnote]

How many houses are now empty because LL won't/can't/don't want to rent them?

[brickwall]

borcy said:

Portia5 said:

borcy said:

Portia5 said:

havoc said:

Portia5 said:

Did any of the wise aware economists on here work out HOW TO HUGELY INCREASE THE SUPPLY of available private rental sector properties as a means to reducing rents to manageable levels especially for those on average or below average wages ?

There's only one real route - Council House building. Get the public sector involved. .

How on earth is building council houses going to increase the supply of PRIVATE SECTOR PROPERTIES?

Silly idea.

I think the point is it would increase rental properties in general, regardless of who owns them.

So why bother BUILDING them when they're there already, [/footnote]

How many houses are now empty because LL won't/can't/don't want to rent them?

Complete red herring of an argument.

The UK has one of the lowest vacant homes rates of the whole OECD. 2.7% of homes are classified as vacant, and 0.9% are classified as “long term vacant”. In NL the rates are 2x those in the UK, in France 3x.

[borcy]

brickwall said:

borcy said:

Portia5 said:

borcy said:

Portia5 said:

havoc said:

Portia5 said:

Did any of the wise aware economists on here work out HOW TO HUGELY INCREASE THE SUPPLY of available private rental sector properties as a means to reducing rents to manageable levels especially for those on average or below average wages ?

There's only one real route - Council House building. Get the public sector involved. .

How on earth is building council houses going to increase the supply of PRIVATE SECTOR PROPERTIES?

Silly idea.

I think the point is it would increase rental properties in general, regardless of who owns them.

So why bother BUILDING them when they're there already, [/footnote]

How many houses are now empty because LL won't/can't/don't want to rent them?

Complete red herring of an argument.

The UK has one of the lowest vacant homes rates of the whole OECD. 2.7% of homes are classified as vacant, and 0.9% are classified as “long term vacant”. In NL the rates are 2x those in the UK, in France 3x.

Not an argument it was a question. You've answered it. Thanks.

[havoc]

borcy said:

How many houses are now empty because LL won't/can't/don't want to rent them?

Very very few I suspect - how many landlords can afford to take that stance, given how highly geared most of them are. Certainly not a big enough number to be material to the supply of housing stock.

If LL's are trying to get out of the game due to the regs change, they'll either be trying to sell a house with sitting tenant to another LL, or they'll be selling an empty house on the homeowner market. Empty properties will mostly be transitory in nature not deliberate*. But Portia either doesn't know that because he's full of st, or wants to be disingenous because he's clinging onto an increasingly indefensible position.



* There's far more empty housing stock due to the likes of AirBnB than residential landlording. Maybe the government should go after holiday lets?!?

[bristolracer]

Steve H said:

bristolracer said:

The biggest legacies that the boomers (of which I am one) have left behind are:
An environmental disaster of a planet and
A divided and fragmented world that is continuously one step away from major world conflict.
The ponzi housing market is just a mechanism to keep the wasteful consumerism going and to provide money for arms so that we can keep the poor nations under the cosh.

I would like to think my grandkids will have it better than me, but I really have little hope of that happening.

Worth remembering that people have been screwing up the environment since Victorian times, we just got a head start on the rest of the world on that one.

And there hasn’t been a world war since before the boomers were born. For sure there is always conflict somewhere but prior to Ww1/2 there was usually plenty of countries fighting each other, they just weren’t capable of a war that reached round the globe at that time.

I’ll forgive the victorians, too long ago for the science to be understood. Boomers were well aware of what was going on. In the 70s catalytic converters arrived because we understood that exhausts were toxic. 50 years later we are still pumping out masses of fumes. In the 80s we found out that the ozone layer was being rapidly destroyed. Yes we reacted but 40 years after this crisis we are still pumping millions of tonnes of ste into the atmosphere.
As for wars, since ww2 we have consistently backed dictators, corrupt governments in order to maintain business and financial and arms manufacturers interests. This has led to many avoidable conflicts and proxy wars and millions of innocent people killed or displaced.
Big business and political interests have under the stewardship of the boomers fked over the environment and any chance of a world without conflict.

[Portia5]

Sheeesh! It's quite hard work explaining something which is basically really simple. At least try to accept that supply shortage is playing a big part in crazy rent levels.

So it's probably easier to say that if you believe that the answer to increasing the supply of private sector availability (so that rents at least hold and don't continue rising to crazy levels) is to do a mass build of prefabs or pretend that councils with no money should use these unavailable funds to rapidly build housing en masse plus the infrastructure etc etc that requires then I'm not going to argue with you. It's nonsensical, and it 100% won't be happening, but hey-ho. You can always say when The Great Housing Crisis turns into the Great Housing Collapse, it's because we didn't listen to your wisdom.

You should know, though, that the Crisis is not really very difficult to reverse or - at least- stabilise. Not by building, by redirecting all kinds of regulation and legislation to assist, rather than undermine, the letting industry.

As regards landlords withdrawing from the market, obviously some have, though not, I think, that many. Here's an agency that specializes in handling quitters' properties: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find...

But it's not as simple as properties changing hands from one landlord to another. Because for every landlord who's quitting there's probably two who simply aren't expanding. I'm one. I add about 4-6 a year to my collection. But rarely a residential since the weird legislation began. ADS 6%??? Rent controls???
Eviction restriction??? etc etc etc etc. No thanks. Just buy commercials instead.

Other associates buy in all kinds of places. Recently Greece, USA and Dubai seem popular. Others diversify into renovation or build projects - churches, steadings and some commercial too. All money diverted away from the UK resi letting market. And yet others diversify property money into all kinds of optional business things in the UK.

So either pretend that crazy rent levels isn't a problem - a fast growing problem - or start thinking out how to stabilise and even possibly reduce them.

Controlling inflation is a way to help. Reversing population growth/net migration is another. But far and away the easiest and simplest and most effective is to expand the supply by making it an attractive market again for investors to pour funds into.

Edited by Portia5 on Saturday 20th April 23:27

[borcy]

Portia5 said:

But far and away the easiest and simplest and most effective is to expand the supply by making it an attractive market again for investors to pour funds into.

Edited by Portia5 on Saturday 20th April 23:27

Are more houses being built with these funds that could be poured in?

If there aren't loads of empty houses, then it shuffling owners doesn't do much.

[Portia5]

havoc said:

If LL's are trying to get out of the game due to the regs change, they'll either be trying to sell a house with sitting tenant to another LL, or they'll be selling an empty house on the homeowner market. Empty properties will mostly be transitory in nature not deliberate*. But Portia either doesn't know that because he's full of st, or wants to be disingenous because he's clinging onto an increasingly indefensible position.

Your naive understanding is forgivable because it's an understanding of a market you're not actively involved in, but the scenario you've outlined is far far far from the reality of matters.

Currently, as I've tried to explain to you, legislation is off-putting to potential new landlords. And, as I've also explained, only a few (5%?) of existing landlords are interested in expanding their portfolios - again because of silly regulation/legislation. So how active do you think the market is for offloading occupied tenancies? Ill tell you. It's DEAD. Unless the owner of the unwanted property is prepared to reduce the asking price substantially, which most aren't or if they are then only very slightly and gradually, especially as other 'punitive' legislation makes the whole disposal unattractive anyway.

Of course many of these properties at the lower end are not the quality/type/location/whatever that the modern first time buyer wants, and even if they - or any buyer- did want any of them with a view to kicking out the incumbent tenant and taking owner occupancy, there's a mass of legislation making that an expensive and time consuming process and a mass of lender regulation preventing the purchase being facilitated.

You really do need to spend a bit of time in the residential letting business to understand how it and its properties work. Pretending you DO know sends you down the same rabbit hole as the recent and current (and, I fear, oncoming) legislators and regulators whose insistence on implementing silly nonsense has caused so much damage to the interests of the very large pool of UK private sector tenants. Not that they weren't warned and told what the outcome would be, but once a dopey brain gets a 'bright idea', it's hard to get them to let it go.

Edited by Portia5 on Sunday 21st April 00:10