The Housing Crisis is Even Worse Than You Think | Aaron Bastani meets Vicky Spratt | Downstream 

I always wonder how can the typical family with average income afford a higher rate+ more expensive home? in my area multi generational home is becoming the norm . Don’t forget to add the inflation which just this week was 9.1 on the CPI , producers index 11.3, it’s going to be a rough ride for sure

This is why being informed pays off. I see any financial market condition as a plethora to make wealth. I had my $80k diversified and it has grown by 3x in the past 7 months with compounding, venturing doesn’t necessarily boil down to funds but you also have to be informed, be patient and back it up with good guidance

@@bsetdays6784 Not a good time to brag while people are hurting tho im keen to know how are you able to achieve all that given that the market has being a mess most of the year?

@@evitasmith6218 Eleanor Annette Eckhaus " a fiduciary Finacial Advisor i employed in order to reduce my risk of a permanent loss of capital and portfolio's overall volatility. Her approach and strategies are top notch. You can lookher up for more info she's well renowned

I just looked up this person out of curiosity, and surprisingly she seems really proficient. I thought this was just some overrated BS, I appreciate this.

Me too

for me also.

💯

The situation is very similar here in the U.S. I, too, am a renter in my late 50s whose single, and there's virtually no chance I'll be able to buy a house at this point in my life. As one who has far less in retirement savings than I'll need to maintain the modest lifestyle I've lived so far, I feel a lot of anxiety and uncertainty about what the future will bring. There are many people here in the U.S. in the same situation.

Not quite in my 50s but me too...

Same, apart from this year. Plus it’s really hard to find landlords who’ll accept people who receive HB when there’s such fierce competition.

Same . I need a bungalow and less than 1 showing a week in Newcastle upon Tyne. They are selling them the housing associations.

Yes 🙌 im sick of having to live like Charlie Bucket's grandparents when I work full time 💀✋

The poor will always struggle. There have been countless revolutions in the past yet it always reverses to the landlord - setf model.

I don't think they feel any shame. Many of them are wealthy landlords!

At least you can trade on your looks.. Blokes don't have that luxury..

@@stevenwatsham5973 certainly not desirable for women, but always a fall-out option. There's a reason why it's men who are the majority % of homeless, and also suicides.

​@@stevenwatsham5973doesn't sound all that luxurious to me

​@@harrypike731No, it is not in the least desirable. She was in a desperate situation!!

ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.

lots of reasons why people fail to save a lot of money - have you seen the first 10 minutes of the film Up? I'm the same age as this woman and my husband and I have saved money for the past decade, but random unforeseeable events slashed our savings time and time again. I have saved all my life, but still have to dip into savings when unexpected things occur. We have had to move back in with parents three times because of just blind bad luck. My husband was in university for 7 years, so it was just me on a low income, thankfully his degree was a good one and landed him a job straight away, which is why we could move out and save more, but we lost 3k just rebuying all the things we had to sell or had to give up in the previous moves - we didn't even have plates or chairs when we moved in three years ago! We got ourselves sorted, and a house might be on the horizon now. I know people better off and people worse off than me, but everyone's personal circumstances are different and random things just happen to you. We're all just a series of unpredictable, uncontrollable bad events away from being homeless.

​​​​​​​​​@@leonie7754 both of my parents died before I was 21, I ended up "homeless" for 2 years as I was living in backpackers hostels, the income I had at that time meant I couldn't afford to rent a room. I also have a disability which means the jobs available to me are rather limited. I have also been single my entire life, largely due to this disability. I never had the luxury of HAVING to move back in with my parents as I didn't have parents. My father died from Alzsheimers and my mum from cancer. The equity in the house went to my dad's care and when my mum got ill she had to give up work and was declared bankrupt as there was nothing to pay off the mortgage with, which meant I got nothing when they died. My grandparents had both passed away when I was under 10, on both sides. My father was an only child and my mother's only sibling lived in Australia. So, no wider family network. But I still saved once I had a job and a roof over my head and I can guarantee you that Vicky's circumstances were far better than mine in the 10 years leading up to her house purchase. She even bought her 1 bed flat with her partner...so, I get what you mean, but I'm not buying it. Her latest article reveals that she not only had parents but also grandparents when she bought her flat, her grandad helped her buy a sofa. She also grew up in Oxted which is commutable distance from London and she has said herself she is middle class, but also south east middle class. so worst case scenario she had parents to go and live with if she couldn't afford rent or had an unexpected expense. She wasn't even in London most of the time for her job, but was travelling around the UK, presumably on company expenses. I would love to know what uncontrollable circumstances this white, pretty, Oxford graduate, gallivanting around the UK in a journalism role, who grew up in a commuter town in Surrey with her middle class family, who had a partner to buy with, I would love to know what uncontrollable expenses she had that meant she only put down 5% at most. Her flat was a 1 bed, she mentions 500k value in the video. So, that's £25k for 5%. She mentions that she was looking at properties in her early 20s and I think she bought 2 years ago, at circa 33 or 32. She also bought with a partner, so, assuming there is an equal split, she put down £12.5. Which means she saved just over a grand a year. Look at the jobs she's done over the years, those are not low paying jobs. I could understand someone only being able to save £100 a month or less on an average salary, but she was not on an average wage. And we know she definitely isn't now, cause the article also says she's buying out her ex, which means that she must have earnings high enough to make up for his. I have friends in London who are in their mid to late 20s, who are very much like Vicky. Earning £60k plus. They don't budget at all. Their idea of "hard times" is not being able to go on holiday. They go out for bottomless brunch every week, pay £120 for their gym membership, go to gigs all the time, buy the best make up, pay £150 for their hair every 2 months, and own designer handbags, and then complain that their rent has increased from £800 to £900 pcm, which has largely been done by landlords trying to cover THEIR uncontrollable expenses. These people are spending 2k a month on excess, but blame that £100pcm for them being unable to save. £60k is a good salary in London if you don't have kids and make the effort to save in some areas of your life. I know one woman who came to London on an opening salary of £37k - not bad for a 22 year old!! Her parents even gave her £12k to help her out until she was earning more. By 26, she was on £62k. That £12k was depleted, she had no savings, her parents had to help her with a deposit for a new room. She blamed it on the landlord raising her rent from £750 to £860 over the years. I was living in the same house, working 2 jobs at the time with a combined income of £35k. My room cost the same as hers and I still saved £500 a month. EDIT: take a look at her Instagram. Two trips to Mexico and one to Canada and I've only looked back over 2 years. I have one word for Vicky: "waagh".

Totally agree

Student loan repayments take many years to pay off too before you can save up for a house. Rents go up every year. It is hard for many.

I live in Milwaukee Wisconsin which is the city the book covers. The population which is highlighted in this book struggle to make their way in all ways not just the housing situation. The pandemic and Wisconsin’s insistence on business and agencies’ closures and restricted student attendance in school for an academic year have doubled the economic impact of housing instability in these poor communities.

Yep. If you didn't buy before covid you're dead meat.

Shortage of homes is the brainwash for importing too many people

ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.

Yup, pension and financial planners would be advising BTL.

This hit me hard

Correct

I'm not sure you actually get it

A little more explanation may be needed ?

Same in America 😢

People in them are old peoples who kids grew up. But there 1 bedders is in slummy tiny flats and when we singles get disabled there’s no bungalows. Families get spaces they can live in. singles get coffins with no bench room. I cook with energy saving equipment, meaning I need a bigger kitchen to put them on. Cookers are too expensive to ruin, we can’t split the energy bills like families.

Yup totally agree Vicky . HAs are selling off properties.

People can’t afford to move

Agree. Single people should downsize. Sure it's nice to have a 'spare room' or whatever, but it's unfair on the likes of families living in sheds. I have a friend like that...3 bedroom rental, lives alone, refuses to downsize because she likes the space. Yeah, don't we all?

@@Amerikiwi. it costs at least a k to downsize there is 276 single people ( in 2013) per every one available home. But we still need room to cook like families, we still need bench room. Space too move . I’ve been in a flat with 3 tiny benches . I use ninja cooking to save energy a microwave a kettle. Where do I cook. Then we have the rich telling us to cook from scratch. We got no space nowhere to put our kitchen stuff. No storage space in some flats. I’m in a 1 bedder now. . When you lit find moving costs and build the one bedders that we can downsize too. That have suitable facilities to cook and live in that’s not chlostrophobic and detrimental to our health and there are another 275 flats for all the singles seeking them . Then and only then do you have a right to lecture us on down sizing. I’m in a 1 bedder now, I’m disabled and need to move as I’m upstairs but can’t because there is literally 1 bungalow or less in the whole of Newcastle which is a city for at least 1k seeming them. When the facilities is there then you have the right to bully us singles . Ok

If 70,000 people sell their rentals then 70,000 could buy their homes. Same number of people housed. A rental that is sold is not lost.

I am not joking when I say that I think spending so much of my teenage years reading Terry Pratchett is a big part of why I grew up to be as left-wing as I am. GNU Terry Pratchett

Steal a little your a criminal, steal a lot & they make you a king !

Love Terry Pratchett.

Only most Slumlords have the privilege of visiting such "projects" inorder to purchase various key properties.Yet still hate with a passion,the very same people,who they purchase to claim such properties,or even socalled tend to assist them.And of course still outsource, to attend or even get invited to all the best, of such proper social occasions!

Foreign oligarchs & money laundering. Your own selling you out.

I can feel your pains. New guys need to realize the risks that come with all of this. You could lose it all and you could win it all. It goes both ways. Second, what works for A may not necessarily work for B and you should not be a bandwagon investor. A good number of folks are raking in huge 6 figure gains in this downtrend, but such strategies are mostly successfully executed by folks with in depth market knowledge.

@@devereauxjnr Factos!! Since the market became extremely volatile and pressure increased (I should be retiring in 17 months), I took the decision to work closely with a financial advisor. It has already been 9 months and counting, and I have made approximately 600K net from all of my holdings.

@@MrGravity304 That's impressive, my portfolio have been tanking all year, tried learning new strategies to gain in the current market but all of that flew right over head, please would you mind recommending the Adviser you're using.

@@NotyourBusiness-urto6 My advisor is the quite famous NICOLE DESIREE SIMON She has been making a fortune online worth millions of dollars in digital assets for a select few for years. Lately, these types of services have appeared that allow you to copy the results of the experts. She demonstrates how to copy it automatically using that system.

@@MrGravity304 Thanks for the info, i found her website and sent a message hopefully she replies soon.

In many ways worse, at least back then it wasn't too hard to find a scrap of land to build a house on the sly. There were no planning regulations outside of most big towns. There also were often laws enshrining the right to occupy empty properties.

obviously, if you were a Serf it sucked, but even then the Lord had obligations to provide you with a home or a place to build one and land sufficient to feed your family. Your obligations of how many days you had to work on the Lord's land were limited too. You just couldn't leave the land voluntarily. But now you can work more days than a medieval peasant ever did and still might lose your home....

​​​@@queenvagabond8787 The British people have themselves to blame for this situation. If they don't like it, then change it.

Land "Lords"

@@paulheydarian1281 but...but...we like being subservient to our masters

I have never seen that it is so bad in the pharmacy right now ,lloyds was busted ,closing store in Asda ,Tesco ,Boots is thinking of selling .It is so bad in the pharmacy and we can't strike like NHS just bureaucratic people try to overload pharmacy job

Even the right to buy lot got screwed over in the end, when councils do compulsory purchase orders to bulldoze estates to make way for luxury apartment blocks, they look for any excuse to pay below market rate.

ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.

@@piotrwojdelko1150 whole fabric of Britain is decaying like old cloth frayed . That's the eletist plan Make ordinary life so dire and insecure that the popular is happy with their burgers and booze

@@GreatSageSunWukong Or HS2

Maybe all the homeless workers could strike at once?

Maybe all the workers strike at once and bring the system down. Workers Strike Back!

TAKE BACK WHAAT POWER, SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONTROL ALL PRICES, THE GOV CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT BUT TO BUILD MORE APARTMENTS AND HAVE RENT CONTROL IN THEM, THAT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION, TO THE PROBLEMS

La Terreur?

No, we need someone who researches the WHOLE country rather than espousing assumptions.

She is a college grad with thoughts. You can’t say we need more socialized housing with out saying where the money is coming from.

​@@shiner8375 exactly! Otherwise you won't be taken seriously.

Agreed

From taxes? We are 31 trillion in debt. I’m sure the Uk is similar. One homeless guy where I live has destroyed 3 public housing units. Until you fix that, no solutions possible. Just like children, give a toy and they will not take care of it. I want my taxes spent on my police, roads, education, and yes a helping hand.

The fact that this is considered lucky..is a telling sign of where we're at in society. Lucky to have your own place at the age of 50

oi mate give me a house mate would you

​@@SmithWhite-pf9kq indeed - I'd paid mine off at age 49.

Building cost has gone through tge roof. Also the dollar is constantly being devalued. Any home is a decent investment . At least the value is still there.

It's a population problem, not a system one, the system worked well when the population was far fewer.

@@Theother1089 This is the elephant in the room tbh, and it's one that leftists and anti-capitalists - either wittingly or unwittingly - ignore. Britain is not a large country. Much of our land-mass that is not yet built upon, is not built upon for good reason. The answer is not to simply just "build more houses!" until our entire landscape goes from green to grey and we become the Hong Kong of Europe. Don't get me wrong, I've not love for the Conservatives, and in terms of actually *conserving* anything in this country, they've been about as useful as a chocolate teapot. However, the crux of the housing/property crisis is not caused by Tory incompetence. It's caused by the sharp, significant rise in our country's population, predominantly via immigration, over the past 20 - 30 years. Local infrastructure, including the housing market, gets completely skewed by this shift, and can't cope with the demand. The housing crisis is worse in the areas that, surprise surprise, have seen the most influx of immigration and overall population increase (London, Manchester, Bristol, etc). What's worse, recent data released by agricultural and food companies in the UK estimate that the population is actually far higher than the Government's purported £67m. It's more like £80m. The populations of numerous areas of London for example, have more than doubled since 2000. That just isn't sustainable in any way shape or form, regardless of your political leanings on immigration from an ethics standpoint. Sure, but to let and portfolio landlords *are* a problem, and the UK doesn't have as much support for renters from a regulatory perspective as alot of other countries in Europe do, but at the end of the day, all of this is akin to us being in a sinking boat and pointing at our shipmate scooping in extra water from the sea with a cup as the reason for us sinking, when in actuality we're ignoring the gigantic hole in the bottom of the boat...

@@harrypike731 were all products of our environment, and although most people think they're free thinkers, they're not. We in the UK are brain washed to think we should subsidise the rest of the world.

@@harrypike731 The population make-up has changed and the system has failed to keep up. It's not the 1960's anymore. We should have more apartments and small properties for people to rent and that would take some of the pressure off the actual housing market. I don't want a house and I don't need a house and (judging by the amount of competition for even the most abyssmal properties) there must be quite a lot of people in the same boat). And speaking of boats, I know that there has also been a steady increase of pressure on the type of people who live on boats (or in vehicles) over the past 10 or so years which has also been driving those people onto the council housing lists. It's played right into the hands of landlords (MPs and their friends for example).

@@Theother1089 The system requires growth to function- without more labour you can't have more growth so you either need more people or you need to replace them and in that case you are challenging the right of people to exist. It is all well and good to say that the population is too large- what are you going to do? Allow people to starve so you can lower the population? Perhaps the problem is increased life expectancy as old people on pensions are no longer contributing. Again, you can't very well euthanize them! Or better- billionaires and millionaires get way more than they have contributed and waste more resources as a group than poor people do, we could just deal with our wealth accumulation problem. Stop allowing them to have yachts and private jets and other things that are unsustainable!

Same

Just like in Australia, the UK population has close to wall to wall corporate media so you get permanent right wing governments that always screw over the people. So the elites want us back to a feudal system where the few have it all .... and the rest of us... Own nothing and be 😅🎉 ....

I am afraid there were no successful governments. There have been a bunch of incompetent governments in succession.

It's a real pain in the hole to not have the basic stability of a home.

Global problem because they're all on it together! If the government stop selling council properties and force housing developers to build more social housings instead of building properties to sell privately at higher prices then we wouldn't see huge problems!!!

@@NeoFreshair it's not a problem for oligarchy. Rentier capitalism. It's the whole point of it.

​@@NeoFreshair not sure how the government can force developers to build anything.

@@lukemclellan2141 They could threaten them, in not allowing them to build anything?

Liam, ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.

It is worth watching Gary Stevenson to see how unequal wealth continues to drive this.

@@tonychorley4936 Gary is someone I subscribe to and is fantastic at explaining the problem with wealth distribution and where things are heading. I hope he starts to get a larger following, he is brilliant.

Same, I'm shocked the rapid population influx hasn't been mentioned, as if it isn't happening and a factor!

Why despair? They will be living with you until you croak it, then takeover ownership.

@@johnnybgood3909 I’ll sell up and live in a box before that happens! 😂

what you can do, is share it with everyone you know

Complicated with no end in sight.

Sensationalism in the highest

It's very hard to get people to stop looking at the effects of problems (which is always the quick (mentally lazy?) option) and get them to try to find the root cause of them instead. As well-meaning as this young lady is, she is making the same mistake. While you are correct in saying that the banks have been the ones forcing governments to lower interest rates, lending many multiples of income, bundling, repackaging, hypothecating, selling and re-selling the same loans to investors (read:Pension funds) etc. that is also the result of the problem rather the 'real' cause. Once you've been conditioned to believe that you MUST relinquish control over much of your life and your assets to a bunch of strangers, it is only a question of time before these kinds of calamities will occur. The only unknown, is how deep and for how long the disaster will continue as such a system of nanny-state infantilization guarantees that the very worst in society will be attracted to positions in the entity being given the control.

It's supply and demand that controls house prices, huge population rise in Britain = sky high prices, huge population decrease like Italy = homes selling for 1 euro.

@@Theother1089 Price increases in anything, when due to supply and demand, are relatively small and/or short-lived as long as government and banks don't intervene to maintain the increase. However, price 'booms' are NOT the result of supply and demand. They are entirely the result of artificially induced inflation via increased money supply and credit expansion - as Faraz said. House price booms are no different. i.e. The population of the UK has not increased 10 fold+ since the low of 1983 to account for the 10x increase in average house price since then. So, that increase is not due to supply and demand. As can be seen by the homeless on the streets, more people needed a place to live in 2022 than ever before. So the 'demand' was very high, the supply didn't change much but the prices dropped. The reason for the drop was not supply/demand but interest rate increases after a long period of artificially low rates. If you could only borrow 3x salary, the average price wouldn't - couldn't increase as much as if buyers are able to borrow 10x their salary because their maximum bid size is 3 times lower - no matter how much they liked the property. Then, to enable 10x (and more) borrowing, interest rates had to be artificially held down to keep the monthly payments at around the same level for the average salary to pay it. The Italy example is not a good one. Those houses are in very remote, unpopulated areas with poor infrastructure, services and they're derelict. e.g Liverpool (and some other parts of the UK) have £1 houses for sale that are not in remote areas and where populations have increased.

@@Kevin6805 I disagree, if something remains short of supply, it will be expensive until more is produced or demand falls.

There's 'poor' Donald Trump(former US) president in the dock for asset appreciation, and what about other individuals doing the same...so corrupt.😀😀😀

Sigh

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, he led from 1959 to 1990 is the world’s most successful post-colonial nation.

Just like in Australia, the UK population has close to wall to wall corporate media so you get permanent right wing governments that always screw over the people. So the elites want us back to a feudal system where the few have it all .... and the rest of us... Own nothing and be 😅🎉 ....

Joe, ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.

Same in Newcastle the outer villAges I’m disabled and I live in absolute fear as a single woman

We're heading toward an L.A. future with thousands living in tents and cars.

ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.

@@cujimmi The only way to solve this is for house prices and wages to come closer together. Either you massively reduce the price of houses, or you raise wages. You aren't going to win much political capital by reducing the value of baby boomers' primary asset, so wages must rise.

great, now wake up and have your muesli..

@@cujimmi simple solution - constrict the money supply by taxing wealth

Wealth redistribution is now inevitable because inequalities have destroyed societal cohesion. What is the purpose of being wealthy if the community you reside in and the society you are part of is in crisis? It will be detrimental to everyone, not just for those who are poor.

@@arun_arutchelvan 'There is no such thing as society.'

No one mentioned the population increasing, I looked at stats while listening to this. The most obvious factor but never mentioned, why?

@@justinshore5566 Maybe because that's been happening for last five thousand years?

@@toby81tube the video is about a housing crisis and the population is vastly increasing but no biggie?? Unreal!

ACCORDING TO A RECENT STORY in the Eastern Evening News, there is “a crisis in affordable housing” in the UK. As in so many other contexts, the word “crisis” is political Newspeak for: “The government wants more money and power.” In this case, it is the Department of Housing and Development that wants housing subsidize, needless to say. This whole story is all too symptomatic of the Alice-in Wonderland world of contemporary liberalism in the UK. In that world, prices are just unfortunate barriers to be overcome by having the government make things “affordable.” There is seldom a thought that prices are conveying an underlying reality about costs and scarcity-a reality that is not going to be changed by throwing the UK taxpayers’ money around to make things “affordable.” Obviously, the more money you take away from taxpayers, the fewer things they will be able to afford, like having a one-income family, so that children can be raised at home instead of in day-care centers. But of course extreme Socialists would throw more money at day care too. Where all this money is coming from or at the sacrifice of what else is not a subject that interests them very much. Free-spending Labour party liberalism is like a dog chasing his tail and speeding up when he fails to catch it. Those who have for decades blithely loaded new costs onto housing in Norfolk-whether in the name of environmentalism, a Deer Park, zoning or other policies dear to the heart of Environmental-liberals-equally blithely ignore those costs as they ask taxpayers in the rest of the country to pick up the tab. Scare tactics are a standard part of this political exercise. We are told, for example, that home prices in the East of England may reach the point where they will be “well beyond the means of even much of the middle class.” Let’s do something revolutionary: Stop and think. If housing in Norwich rises well beyond the means of middle-class people, who is going to live in this City. Either new-and richer-people are going to move in to replace those who can no longer afford to live in Norwich or there are going to be a lot of vacancies. Anyone who has taken Economics 1 and remembers supply and demand knows that a high vacancy rate and rising rents do not go together. If the dire scenario of skyrocketing rents is to play out, somebody has to come in and replace those people who can no longer afford to live in Norwich-and the replacements have to be able to pay housing prices that are beyond what the middle class can afford. Are there enough rich people out there waiting to replace the current 136 thousand Norwichens And where are these rich people being housed today? Surely they are not living out on the streets or in pup tents. And if they vacate their current digs to move to Norwich, will that not create lots of vacancies elsewhere? Like much that appears in the liberal media, this Eastern Evening News is not news reporting. It is disguised advertising for government programs-and false advertising at that. Just a couple of years ago, my friend rented a two-bedroom apartment in a modern apartment complex with its own tennis courts and swimming pools. His rent was £450 a month. Was this a government-subsidized development? No. The freemarket price for such an apartment in the community where he lived just happened to be £450 a month. It was in one of many smaller towns around the country where liberals either haven’t gotten control or haven’t yet had time to drive up housing costs with heavy-handed environmental laws, zoning restrictions and the innumerable other ways that liberals blithely pile on costs for others to pay. A study of homelessness-The Excluded British by William Tucker-detailed the ways in which housing prices have been forced up by artificially created scarcities, many under pious political labels. In one of the hotbeds of environmentalism (thats Norwich) and other forms of liberalism-In Norfolk-the average price of a house rose five-fold in just one decade. Real estate agents say that housing prices depend on three factors-location, location and location. Perhaps they need to add: liberals, liberals and liberals.

@@toby81tube You and your brain made contact yet?

Didn't save the taxpayer a penny ( whatever savings were made were spent on beaurocracy)

@@lordsummerisle852 From memory i think it was made very clear, in advance, it would cost more than doing nothing. At the same time IDS was crying and telling people he had no problem living on a benefit level income on his daddy's estate...

Wages and housing have nothing in common. They are two completely different markets.

​@@zuzanazuscinova5209Theyre connected for people in the real world.

I worked in california in about 2001 when 9 11 happened ... I was getting paid about 15 dollars an hour at that time. We stayed with friends I dont know what their rent was tbh ... I think their parents paid their rent bit I was amazed to find out the minimum wage is only recently gone up to 16 dollars an hour when one of my jobs back then I was getting 20 dollars for being a hostess and lots of cocain if I wanted it from my boss ugh! And another job was 15 dollars for making sandwiches and another was a dollar a wrap to make sage bundles on the beach. 😂 no you can't smoke it! Lol! But it blew my mind I was getting more then than people today in some states.

​@@zuzanazuscinova5209they have one thing in common. People need wages to pay rent. 😂

⁠​⁠​⁠@@zuzanazuscinova5209what a silly thing to say - don’t know about you .. but I use my wages to pay rent