Sadly seems to me like nothing more than back door holiday homes.

The average village round my way is a mix of UNaffordable housing and holiday homes. If some of these are affordable then that is step forward. Even better if they were all affordable and reserved for local workers.

Strangely no Biff. I suspect they are occupied by people who bought then before they were rendered unaffordable to the rest of us by the inflationary policies of our government and the central banks, or by people who have been beneficiaries of these policies, like bankers for instance.

All house were affordable by the people who currently occupy them at the time that they bought them. However, monetary conditions and assets prices change over time and I suspect that if these people tried to off load these properties now, the current pool of buyers may have some difficulty affording their asking prices. I suspect, and hope (as currently renting) , we will see some "affordability" return to the market over the next few years.

This won't solve the problem of the rural worker on £15k pa who will continue to have to compete with the commuting city worker on £60k pa for the same restricted stock of village properties. Maybe we have to wait for Peak Oil to sort this issue out?

I agree there is no overall shortage of accomodation nationally Biff. However the cost of accessing that accomodation is now prohibitive to many people in low paid jobs in very many locations. The solution at a macro level is to reimpose sensible lending standards on the banks so that speculative bubbles cannot keep on being inflated. This could be done after the current bubble has been allowed to deflate but I doubt it will be somehow.

The problem is not just associated with small villages "away from it all". I, like most on this forum have climbed the ladder but what about those just about to step onto the ladder? I have three children that will want a home of their own in the not too distant future, how will they do this in deepest darkest south London? Granted we don't live in a sustainable forest community but it's the same problem of finance and affordability! Will I have to remortgage and lend them the money to get started and will the government then impose gift tax!!!!

Chris >The route cause of all this is monetary.
Somebody a long time ago >Money is the root of all evil.

But, "If the banking system wasn't providing the finance on such easy terms" then folk who weren't rich enough to buy a house wouldn't be able to borrow the money. Hmmm.

But at the end of the day you still have the same number of people in the same number of houses. Rich people will always tend to buy more space for themselves leaving the poor to enjoy the park benches.

If you restrict mortgage lending to 3 times income (and a sensible multiple of market rent in the case of buy-to-let), the effective growth in demand for housing will be restricted to the rate of increase in earnings. Things stay affordable for the lower paid, i.e. they can pay their mortgage and still afford to eat and have a reasonable standard of living without getting into further debt. Things stay orderly and you don't need things like Tax Credits to top up the incomes of the lower paid.

If you let people borrow any amount of money without providing evidence of their earnings, the desire of most of the population to live in a castle, means they take advantage of this and stoke up a boom in house prices such that the proportion of earnings required to pay the mortgage goes up for everyone.

If you earn £60k after tax and £30k goes on the mortgage, you can get by on the other £30k. If you earn £15k after tax and £7.5k goes on the mortgage then you have to struggle by on about £150 a week. You've still got to eat, pay for clothes, transport etc same as the higher earner. Fact is you can't manage and you go into debt or HMG steps in to apply a sticking plaster and doles you out a bit of cash to keep things going.

Eventually, all the people at the bottom end are totally priced out of the market, demand dries up for 2 bed houses, so owners of 2 bed house can't trade up to 3 bed etc etc. The markets locks up. Eventually some people have to sell (such as over-stretched borrowers who have been repossessed) so they drop the price. Then noboby will dare buy because they don't want to "catch a falling knife" and prices fall further until they represent real value again (i.e. not much above build costs), then the cycle repeats.

Is this a sensible way to run an economy? Having most of the working people effectively enslaved to the banks seems wrong to me. Let this bubble unwind and then it should be either 3 times your earnings and you prove it or say 10 times market rent if you can't. There will never be another housing bubble and most people will be better off for it.

Biff - money is the root of all evil. Sorry to be pedantic but this is one of those classic misquoted quotes. What was originally said was: <for the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil>, which is quite different, but very appropriate to your discussion. It is from the New Testament of the bible, 1 Timothy 6 v 10.

Jeff B

Posted By: biffvernon
Just remember, that the quantity and quality of housing has never been as good as it is today, even for the poor.

only because many folk have borrowed beyond their means.

What about when rising gas and electricity prices mean that a large proportion of owners will have difficulty affording to heat their old houses, after all a large proportion of the existing stock has poor or bad levels of insulation. How will the poor fair then? I suppose they will go back to open fireplaces and burning anything they can lay their hands on.

Chris

>>Even better if they were all affordable and reserved for local workers.<<

Very good play on words. Anyone reading the conversation might believe that you and Biff were serious. Might be better to end the conversation with an explanation so that anyone visiting the site knows what you are taking the mickey out of.

FYI

Moi! Mischievous! (Spellcheck Richy - repeat twenty times, i before e except after c.) I've never said I'd be happy about anyone living in a cardboard box anywhere.

I'm just pointing out that 'unaffordable' is a silly word to use when one means 'cheap', that Britains are better housed now than at any time in history, that's inequalities of wealth seem to have resulted from our brand of capitalism, that the financial freedoms we enjoy allow some folk to own more than one home and that if the whole banking and financial system goes belly up there will still be the same number of houses lived in by the same number of people.

And don't go thinking I don't have personal experience. Our four grown up children have yet to find their first foothold on the great property ladder, while their parents rattle about in a big house that, a hundred years ago, housed a family of fourteen. Of course if the kids were actually homeless they could return instead of chasing pots of money in cities.

From the Green Building perspective, we don't often hear about occupancy rate. While we insulate our houses we forget that a century ago there would probably have been more people in each building so their per capita footprint was much lower. But of course loft insulation is so much easier than social engineering.

Chris, Mike et Al
decry the banks amorality in lending money to anyone they think will turn a profit: but at whose cost eventually?

Can you picture the scene when bright young banking type says to boss "I've got this brilliant plan; we lend money to people who have proved they cannot afford to repay it, but take our commission and pass on the debt to other banks"
"Excellent, have a bonus" And the silly boggers did it.

These banks including UK ones take on this ridiculous debt and when the bubble bursts try to hide their write-offs. And who pays the bill, we do of course. Go over your (secured) overdraft and your banker will charge you £35 to let you know you are now incurring massive penalties. Ah ! the freedom of capitalism and the free market