Live data from Hacker News

Why Britain doesn’t build

worksinprogress.co

131–140 of 520 posts

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#131
post #22

The housing crisis is universal. There's been growing inability to build in many countries, as the article readily admits. People can't afford homes across the world: USA, Canada, Australia, even China, where supply isn't a problem per se. The article should then address this global phenomenon rather than conclude it is a "political problem", suggesting it is some kind of peculiar ideology exported out of Britain.

So China has an overbuilding problem, right? To the point of demolishing apartment blocks, etc. How does this marry up? Is it the age old problem of building too much in suburbs people don't want to actually live in? Or the old problem of new build apartments being too expensive for most people, so require a bubble?

China's problem is two fold afaik: They allowed apartment buildings to be built that aren't up to code or even structurally sound enough to live in and must be demolished because they're completely unsafe, and all of the ones that were up to code were immediately bought up as investments and left empty by real estate speculators. Letting people have homes would kill demand and lower prices of course, can't have that.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#132
post #26

This is an interesting political trap for the ruling Conservatives that they have made for themselves. The traditional Conservative voter is a home-owner. So you might be a rabid socialist in your youth, but once you get a job, save up for a deposit, and buy your own home, you eventually transition to become yet another middle-aged Tory voter. That pipeline is now broken - young people are unable to save up for their…

> and they're going to need to sell their homes soon, to pay for social and health care in an increasingly threadbare welfare state

Is this a bug or a feature? If the young (the workers) cannot afford to buy their own houses, because the old want to hold on to the value, how can we expect them to be able afford to pay for the welfare state and to take care of the old?

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#134
post #3

I find the economic reductionism in housing planning really irritating. It's not like other public utility functions, but it is damn close to a fundamental and is included in human rights declarations. What kind of state throws up it's hands and claims "it can't" fix housing when states can do precisely that? Thatcher's revolution in council housing is a cesspit of counterfactual outcomes. It made individual househol…

It’s the whole western world at the same time. The same policies, the same social outcomes. It makes me question whether there is any real democracy; did we all just happen to make the exact same decisions in lock step since the 70s by incredible coincidence? And it’s not as if the eventual negative outcomes of housing costs continually outstripping wage growth weren’t obvious and growing year on year. Who is actuall…

Hahaha. Man wants to be fit, swears on his diet routine, sees a chocolate bar on the kitchen table literally 3 seconds later and reverses his decision. Is he under the control of his rational mind? Will? Does an alcoholic choose to continue to drink alcohol after he is an addict?

There is will, and there is will.

Pretending that this doesn't apply to whole societies and that today's secular societies are not driven mostly by a deterministic mechanism consisting of human nature combined with the environment (technology + physical world) is a fool's act, and the ubiqiotus internet commenter attitude. Man yelling at the clouds, clouds of human nature and environment.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#135
post #3

I find the economic reductionism in housing planning really irritating. It's not like other public utility functions, but it is damn close to a fundamental and is included in human rights declarations. What kind of state throws up it's hands and claims "it can't" fix housing when states can do precisely that? Thatcher's revolution in council housing is a cesspit of counterfactual outcomes. It made individual househol…

It’s the whole western world at the same time. The same policies, the same social outcomes. It makes me question whether there is any real democracy; did we all just happen to make the exact same decisions in lock step since the 70s by incredible coincidence? And it’s not as if the eventual negative outcomes of housing costs continually outstripping wage growth weren’t obvious and growing year on year. Who is actuall…

It's not really the entire world: See Spain [1]: Until the financial crisis in 2007, the country liberalized building, often quite dense as opposed to plain sprawl. See, for instance, the growth in the towns surrounding Madrid around train stations. The crisis slowed it down massively though, in part because a lot of builders lost their shirts, as the building became massive overbuilding. But when demand goes up enough, it's still possible to build, and build high. In my home town in Spain, people can still afford homes. If there's an issue, it's still just jobs instead.

So yes, this is all something that is politically solvable in the west. We just need a unified legislative recipe, and strong advocacy. Other lobbying groups manage to get through very unpopular legislation. Why not for something that would actually help?

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSCNDW01ESA470N

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something cannot both be a good investment and accessible to all. Roads are a perfect example of a good investment that is accessible to all. It's called a "common good", and it exists.

OP means something more like "a security which appreciates on average faster than inflation", AKA an asset I can purchase and hold and sell later for more than I paid for it+improvements in real terms.

I think we should shoot for house prices increasing at exactly the inflation level (after a correction for current high prices of course). To me, this would be good enough to be considered a 'good investment', and wouldn't be unfair to future generations.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#137

There are 100 ways we could solve this. And 100 groups, one to veto each way. So nothing will be done, it's the bystander effect. The same basic thing prevents action on climate change.

The West has moved to a Vetocracy. It prevents things from becoming significantly worse, but also things from becoming much better.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#138
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something cannot both be a good investment and accessible to all. Roads are a perfect example of a good investment that is accessible to all. It's called a "common good", and it exists.

Who's out here speculating on roads?

ASTM, sovereign wealth funds, etc. Toll roads can be a pretty good investment.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#139
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state does need to make houses to provide for lower paid people who do critical jobs.

Which jobs are critical? What would happen if those people decided to take higher paid but less "critical" jobs?

If the UK is the same as the US then Agile shaman is mission critical.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#140
post #84

So the article claims that the housing construction boom that ended at the second WW led to a massive stock of housing, which has since declined due to planning issues, leading to a shortage of housing and therefore a rise in prices. This does not hold up statistically. 1939: 11.3 million dwellings in the UK, population 47.9 million people = 4.2 people per dwelling today: 27 million dwellings in the UK, population 67…

> A thought occurred: maybe there are now fewer people per household. This however does not hold up to scrutiny either

what do you mean? it makes perfect sense given the definition of household that it'll be extremely similar to the number of houses. The ratio you're talking about is exactly a reduction in the average number of people per household.

Post reply on HN