Is it worth sticking an oar in?

https://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/Fixing-our-broken-housing-market-White-Paper-February-2017.pdf

the summary, inasmuch as I have read, is "Britain needs more homes to drive market prices down so the cashier in your local spar can afford a house on her meagre wage. We must batter local councils into permitting development of more cheap homes built faster"

My concern is "Fast,cheap,good. Pick 2"

Is there any part of this consultation proposal that considers building better homes, not Barrett lash ups? I haven't read it all, 106 pages.. I've gotta get the day moving..

If it's a consultation, is it a good opportunity to raise he point that Part F needs to be sorted out, or will it just fall on the stony ground beside the "must build a shit ton of homes"* expressway


*or words in a similar order

On the issue of building more homes, not sure where the stats are but, from memory, since the 1950s private sector housebuilding has been within the 150k to 200k range. In the periods when building has reached viable levels it has been because of council and housing association building.

Given that the private sector has never been able to satisfy demand, the political elephant in the room is that, at a time when councils could very easily raise the funds to build houses, the Government will not allow that. Instead, as the Government proposals state, the role of councils is restricted to planning matters so that the private sector will then, as if by magic, build enough homes. And, only with energy efficiency measures if it doesn’t make homes more expensive (see para 1.50).

In short, it’s the ideology of the free market writ large (neoliberalism if you like), but they are in Government so that's what we get ...

Posted By: gravelldbaby boomers' (in general)

Good job you added that caveat. I'd guess that there are a good number of baby boomers on GBF...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer> says "approximately between the years 1946 and 1964.". I for one am comfortably inside that bracket.

Edit to fix markup.

Posted By: gravelld201 which starts "actually, it's complicated..."

and 301 which starts "actually it's statistical cleverness in service of ideology"

When Smith, Marx, Keynes, Eisenstein can use the same world-data and statistical techniques to create 4 radically opposed, indeed warring theories, never resolved over 170yrs by later 'scientific' understanding - then I think Economics' claim even to 'social science' status is tosh.
It's a highly refined/skilled tool of Politics, Philosophy maybe.

I cringe when they wheel on an 'Economics Expert' that we're supposed to accept as authoritatively, dispassionately scientific.

Keynes said "... the astonishing belief that the nastiest motives of the nastiest men somehow or other work for the best results in the best of all possible worlds" or if he didn't http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/02/23/capitalism-motives he should have!

Two things:

Pricing is based on cost of production plus some profit in very few markets, certainly not housing.

Other thing, where can you get 5x multiple mortgage? Thought it was back to 3-3.5x.

Oh yes ringi, sorry, you're right, the costs that developers have to bear have to be remembered. After all, this is a profit making exercise. Section 106 is a fact of life - if the numbers stack up we'll go ahead. If not we won't. That's the basics of the monetisation of housing policy - the homeless need to get up to speed (have I got this right ringi?).

Schools etc need to be close to the new homes, often school in other areas where the older homes are used by people "post children" are being closed. The peak demand for primary schools are a few years after a new area of housing has been built, often the demand never gets get to the peak level again, as area becomes more "mixed" by the time of the 2nd generation of children.

So unless you have a way to make people "post children" move to the areas of new homes, to free up homes near the schools without enough children......

But we do need a way to stop farmers profiting from "planning gain" where they are able to sell fields for new homes.... A farmer selling a field for housing makes about the same profit as the developer, but has none of the risks of building, or the homes not selling.

Posted By: ringiSo unless you have a way to make people "post children" move to the areas of new homes, to free up homes near the schools without enough children......

The same thing applies to jobs - often houses are in the wrong place for a whole bunch of historical reasons, but it remains that the planning system frustrates any attempt to fix the problems.

Posted By: Peter_in_Hungarythe shortfall ... [is] the responsibility of immigrants and those having babies.

Traditionally such increase in population has more than paid for itself in any moderately viable national economy, diluting the per-head cost to society of infrastructure.

What's changing right now with steepening effect, is that humans in general are less and less needed as components of the economy - the common thread of succesful new business models is the replacement of human labour by robots, replacement of human mid-management admin/design/back-office by algorithms and in due course replacement of human top management and bankers. Businesses will work better and better, in terms of profits and share price, the less humans are involved and the 'true laws' of economics can run undistorted by human foibles!

So increase in population now loses its beneficial effect on national economies, as traditionally defined, and becomes an increasing per-head burden on the generators of tax revenue, which means businesses if humans are less and less earning taxable wages.

Put another way, if cost of infrastructure is an increasing burden on 'society', it's the most modern, human-eliminating industries that should bear the cost, via taxation.

Agree in principle except one vital component left out.

If SportsDirect employs 50 well paid automation-technicians instead of hundreds of low paid order pickers, what are the latter supposed to do - crawl away and die, as not needed in the economy? 'Get on their bike' and find another non existent job?

Wait until multifold growth provides hundreds more high-paid automation-technician jobs? That is what conventional economic wisdom relies on - the belief that rising 'productivity' generates such growth that even more jobs are created than it eliminates. With the present new phenomenon of 'hyper-productivity', that no longer applies, if it ever did.

Society has hardly even begun to think how to distribute purchasing power into pockets, other than by (now disappearing) waged work. To even mention any alternative produces furious ideological backlash.

That has been the conventional wisdom - the expected result of 'productivity'.

As I say that no longer applies, when mere 'productivity' is being overwhelmed by 'hyper productivity', by which all up to date 'dispruptive' companies maximise the elimination of humans from payrolls, via rototisation/algorithmisation. This thrust, enabled by 'the digital revolution' is spreading fast, right across the board. It's quite different from traditional incremental productivity improvement - this is systematic, complete elimination of humans. However much growth in these new companies, that just speeds the elimination, the reverse of creating new jobs. No job, not even intensive-human ones like hospitality, caring for the aged, not even top bosses and bankers, are safe from this - the threshold keeps creeping wider and higher.

Posted By: fostertomSociety has hardly even begun to think how to distribute purchasing power into pockets, other than by (now disappearing) waged work. To even mention any alternative produces furious ideological backlash.

So everybody having a baby should be taxed £130K for the privilege Then we could pay for the infrastructure they need. Presumably anybody dying gets refunded their £130K since they're no longer using the infrastructure?

Posted By: djhSo everybody having a baby should be taxed £130K for the privilege

I think they may already be, on average.
I often see and read things about the cost of bringing up kids. Somewhere around £250,000.
We pay about 65% tax overall, so that will be £162,500, not far off the £130,000.
Not having had kids, I want to know where my money is!

Posted By: fostertomThat has been the conventional wisdom - the expected result of 'productivity'.

As I say that no longer applies, ............ the threshold keeps creeping wider and higher.

Another way to look at it is to imagine that all your basic needs are catered for, either through a universal wage or free goods and services. Then ask yourself what you would do with your time.
You could sit in front of the telly, lay in bed, take up a hobby, do some interesting research.
Then ask if you want any recognition for this, it could be an extra slice of cake, some cash, or a 'like' on the interweb. Bitcoins are created by people making computers that solves problems, nothing is actually 'made', but the knowledge may be useful. The time is rewarded though.
So imagine that I have a deep-seated desire to be the best cake maker in Cornwall. I spend time learning how to make a cake, I promote my cake making skills and eventually make a cake and let others try a slice.
If these people then think it is the best cake, they vote me up to be the winner.
I get a prize, 15 minutes of fame (or a bit longer for some people) and then go back to my old life (or not).
Without the pressure of having to do a traditional job (food production is pretty well automated these days, I saw a pizza making machine 25 years ago), and with all my basic needs catered for, the adulation for being the best cake maker in Cornwall should make me happy (I wonder if there is a TV series in this, which is diversifying).

There seems to be a lot of social science in what happens when people do not work. But they are generally comparing working against trying to live off the state in its current form. Given the choice between scrimping and saving for my basic needs or doing a minimum wage job, I know which I would prefer. But given the choice of not scrimping and saving and being forced to do a job that I am not suited to, in a placce with job insercurity, is a totally different kettle of fish.

The series Black Mirror explored alternative futures.
15 Million Merits was one of drudgery and Nosedive one of social 'likes'. Worth watching.