Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Britain doesn’t build

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 520 posts

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#361

Post by gadders »

lucideer wrote: post #48
robertlagrant wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: I originally said Britain built 30k houses last year, which commenters have corrected. Thank you! I don't really understand all this. Surely the main reason for a lack of housing is the difference between house demand (e.g. Britain took in 606k people in net immigration last year) compared to house supply (Britain built I think around 200k houses last year). The state shouldn't need to build houses (in fact it…

> The state shouldn't need to build houses (in fact it doesn't; it just uses your tax money to pay private companies to build houses). It should just make the building and zoning rules simple enough that it's possible to make money from building houses and selling them, and let people get on with it. This is the modern wisdom in the west - it's the approach taken by many governments since the Reagan era (not just in…

Migration at these levels is absolutely a new phenomenon.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#362

Post by cbeach »

In the UK, property developers are forced by the govt to build a certain proportion of social housing into their developments, or to subsidise the building of social housing elsewhere. Obviously, this means the high end property is less desirable (because big spenders are forced to live next-door to social housing tenants). And the social housing built will be boxy and low standard, so again, less desirable, and unprofitable for the developer.

Whenever the govt distorts free markets, it creates shortages. And housing is one of those markets where we REALLY need the private sector to be allowed to build properties that will meet true market demands, rather than properties that will satisfy govt ideologies.

If housebuilding was unconstrained, there would be more of it, which would be good for people at both ends of the market. More high end property means lower prices at the high end, more people moving up out of mid-scale housing, and so on. Prices would fall across the board, and eventually no one would need social housing. We’d ALL benefit.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#363

Post by bloak »

tmnvix wrote: post #265
alistairSH wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the UK not have any equivalent of the US “motor voter” system? When we update our info at the department of motor vehicles, there’s a checkbox on the form to automatically register to vote. So getting on the register is mostly automatic once you have the paperwork in order to get a driver’s license (which is a necessity to function as an adult in most of the US).

I would guess that few countries have the type of situation that exists in the US where a driver's licence is almost essential in order to go about daily life. Many people in the UK don't bother with a licence. It can be prohibitively expensive when you consider the costs of lessons, a vehicle, and of the licence itself.

A provisional driving licence costs £34 (though you could also pay for the photo). I expect some young people get one primarily in order to be able to buy alcohol.

A passport costs £82.50 and is rather less useful as ID inside the UK because it doesn't show an address.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#364

Post by Lastodon »

Tldr: Churchill was a good wartime leader, but during his second term he screwed up the housing regulations so bad it broke up one of the longest conservative runs of all time with Attlee coming in to try and fix the mess.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#365

Post by Lastodon »

bradleyjg wrote: post #247
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Politicians and the bureaucratic class have deep investments in real estate 2. Foreign money keeps flooding into western economies to find a safe haven and lack of capital controls. A bulk of it goes into real estate. 3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or ch…

Greed is exactly the right word. There is a flat unwillingness to acknowledge or reason from the fact by so many homeowners that they are sitting on giant, completely unearned windfalls. There’s a huge sense of entitlement around these inflated prices.

It is an unearned windfall, but people deserve to keep their homes. It bears noting that the issue is caused by property investors, not homeowners. How about we go for the individuals that own more than 3 properties and let grandma keep what she earned?

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#366

Post by mcny »

mmarq wrote: post #334
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into. That may not be fair, but when most voters are property owners you're not going to get a different outcome. This is an interesting topic because it highlights how the political and economic culture is broken and incapab…

> Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into. It's not as simple as "give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into". If you have 20K in your bank account and no property, you have to pay for your care. If you own 2 flats w…

> Does this look fair?

No, but because we should end means testing completely. I thought NHS meant you didn't have to do all the things we have to do here in the US.

A few years ago, I had to do an annual wellness exam so I could keep my health insurance "discount" at work. There was some miscommunication within the three parties: 1. Doctor's office 2. Lab 3. Insurance and I had to act like a mediator between them. I thought that was bad enough but NHS sounds worse now.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#367

Post by siquick »

lucubratory wrote: post #227
ggm wrote: 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…

I don't know if it's the same in the UK, but in Australia 63% of MPs are landlords, compared to only 7% of the general population. Almost no MPs are renters, compared to 30% of the general population. These people are never going to meaningfully help renters because doing so harms landlords, and they are landlords. There's no legitimacy to a system like this, being ruled by people who have completely different fundam…

It’s so rare that one of the candidates for my area in the NSW election even had “Vote a renter into parliament” on every one of her posters and flyers.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#368

Post by troad »

DrBazza wrote: post #59

That article has one chart in it that isn't emphasized enough - home ownership in the UK is a new thing, and historically not typical. Perhaps it's going to become the 'new normal'. Britain isn't flat, especially compared to Belgium and Holland, or even France, which is twice the size. And everyone wants to live in the South East because London is the economic centre, for better or worse. The situation in the south e…

> At least now there are tower blocks getting built in London that are tall. Except they're expensive, get bought out by foreign investors. And then left empty. So they're not much help to anyone other than speculators and developers.

I can't help but be reminded of this meme: https://ifunny.co/picture/big-real-estate-companies-intentio...

There is no circumstance in which it is more profitable to leave an apartment empty than to rent it out, and both speculators and developers understand this.

Other than that I don't disagree with you - there is a cottage industry around the 'housing only ever goes up' assumption, and a lot of legislative moats designed to ensure it stays that way. Until these are defeated - and I'm a lot less optimistic about the UK and Australia than the US on this - housing will sadly remain unaffordable for most.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#369

Post by CaptainMarvel »

Lastodon wrote: post #365
bradleyjg wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greed is exactly the right word. There is a flat unwillingness to acknowledge or reason from the fact by so many homeowners that they are sitting on giant, completely unearned windfalls. There’s a huge sense of entitlement around these inflated prices.

It is an unearned windfall, but people deserve to keep their homes. It bears noting that the issue is caused by property investors, not homeowners. How about we go for the individuals that own more than 3 properties and let grandma keep what she earned?

She may have earned the house to some degree (the article outlines a number of government subsidies which make this doubtful), but she definitely didn’t earn the land value increase.

I’m reminded of this quote:

> Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.

Re: Why Britain doesn’t build

#370

Post by DeathArrow »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #128
ggm wrote: 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…

1. Politicians and the bureaucratic class have deep investments in real estate 2. Foreign money keeps flooding into western economies to find a safe haven and lack of capital controls. A bulk of it goes into real estate. 3. Elections are largely monopolized by older people who mostly tend to be homeowners. The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or ch…

>The entire system is rigged against anything that would impact home prices - such as an increase in supply or change in zoning laws.

The prices in high demand areas, are going to be high, whether residents can legally oppose new developments or not. How much does a house cost in California or New York?

Post reply on HN