Housing

[asperity]

A documentary from 1984 about housing problems. Especially pertinent around 45 minutes in:

 

https://youtu.be/Ch5VorymiL4

 

Is social housing the solution or the problem?

[observer]

Of course social housing is the solution, by increasing supply, you reduce demand, which is then reflected lower prices throughout the market. Of course, allowing the world's waifs and strays into London and the UK generally, doesn't help reduce demand either.     

[asperity]

So you didn't watch the documentary then.....................................................................

[observer]

Must admit Asp, I didn't !   Sure you'll explain the point !    

[asperity]

It shows that Local Councils are not very good at overseeing building projects, the private contractors used being able, seemingly, to do what they like. The effect on Council Housing being, at times, disastrous. I'm not going to pretend to know what the answer is as housing is very far outside my expertise.

[observer]

So it's a contracting or procurement issue; rather than the principle of providing more social housing.  What is clear. is that the private sector isn't providing sufficient housing to cope with demand, and if they did, prices would drop, and so too, profits.

[Davy51]

There was a time when turnover also contributed to profits based on providing plenty of your products for many people at reasonable prices.Post 60s the mantra for business has been to hike prices high & crush the consumers spending power till it squeaks. This also seems to be true of the housing market.

[asperity]

How does business "crush the consumers spending power"? Surely logic dictates that the more spending power the consumer has, the more they spend on the goods that business produces, hence higher profits for said business? Just asking like .

[observer]

Your right about "spending power" Asp;  providing everyone has it.   The more people, with more cash = more demand for goods and services = more jobs to produce them.  Unfortunately, wealth is being concentrated into the hands of fewer people, thus less demand from the many. Especially true in the case of housing, where a mortgage for many is impossible, and even rents are prohibitive. The only way the quite natural concentration of wealth can be corrected, is by a redistributive tax system. 

[asperity]

Obs you are J.Corbyn and I claim my finder's fee .

Wealth is not the same as money, people can be cash rich but wealth poor and vice versa (old widow in a £1M mansion who can't afford to heat it against the single earner in London with a well paid job having to pay £1000/week rent for a "studio apartment. The widow has wealth and no money, the single man has money but no wealth).

Unfortunately it isn't possible for everybody to have as much money as they would like. In fact it has been said that if everybody was given £1million tomorrow, within a year the majority would have spent it all and a minority would be rich. That's people for you.

[Davy51]

Business these days relies on most profit for least outlay & if it squeezes consumers pockets ,don't worry, there is always instant credit ...or debt.

[observer]

   Think JC is a social liberal, I'm not.  Your last para is exactly what I'm saying;  in a free capitalist society, money will always gravitate to fewer and fewer hands; hence a redistributive tax system; to counter this natural phenomenon.   The real challenge will come in the future, as automation takes over jobs, then folk being unemployed will have even less money to spend; so in order to maintain demand, they will have to be given buying power.