Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709224)

Hugh 15-07-2020 10:48
Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
1 Attachment(s)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521
Quote:
The world is ill-prepared for the global crash in children being born which is set to have a "jaw-dropping" impact on societies, say researchers.

Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century.

And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.

Countries will also age dramatically, with as many people turning 80 as there are being born.

What is going on?
The fertility rate - the average number of children a woman gives birth to - is falling.

If the number falls below approximately 2.1, then the size of the population starts to fall.

In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime.

Researchers at the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 - and their study, published in the Lancet, projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.

As a result, the researchers expect the number of people on the planet to peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, before falling down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century.

"That's a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline," researcher Prof Christopher Murray told the BBC.

"I think it's incredibly hard to think this through and recognise how big a thing this is; it's extraordinary, we'll have to reorganise societies."

Why are fertility rates falling?
It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility.

Instead it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.

In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.

Which countries will be most affected?
Japan's population is projected to fall from a peak of 128 million in 2017 to less than 53 million by the end of the century.

Italy is expected to see an equally dramatic population crash from 61 million to 28 million over the same timeframe.

They are two of 23 countries - which also include Spain, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea - expected to see their population more than halve.

"That is jaw-dropping," Prof Christopher Murray told me.

China, currently the most populous nation in the world, is expected to peak at 1.4 billion in four years time before nearly halving to 732 million by 2100. India will take its place.

The UK is predicted to peak at 75 million in 2063, and fall to 71 million by 2100.

However, this will be a truly global issue, with 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.

Pierre 15-07-2020 11:17
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36043504)
in developed countries yes.

Fertility rate is very misleading, should be called Reproduction rate, as it has little to do with Fertility.

More to do with the empowerment of women than anything else and before anyone jumps on that statement, there's thing wrong with that.

Carth 15-07-2020 11:41
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.

this will be a truly global issue, with 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.
Well if we believe all the expert opinions on global warming, we're going to lose much of our food production areas anyway, so feeding people may become a problem before the lack of people is ;)

Hugh 15-07-2020 14:30
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36043507)
in developed countries yes.

Fertility rate is very misleading, should be called Reproduction rate, as it has little to do with Fertility.

More to do with the empowerment of women than anything else and before anyone jumps on that statement, there's thing wrong with that.
Quote:
However, this will be a truly global issue, with 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.
Quote:
The fertility rate - the average number of children a woman gives birth to - is falling.

tweetiepooh 15-07-2020 15:13
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Two thoughts - in some place women have lots of kids because of lack of prophylaxis and also to ensure some kids survive to adulthood and can then look after the parents later in life. As healthcare improves the need for lots of kids drops.

Wonder what is going to happen Dec2020 onwards - ie 9 months after lockdown started.?

Carth 15-07-2020 15:17
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
The fertility rate - the average number of children a woman gives birth to

Big families, thing of the past to be honest. Advances in many areas have meant we no longer need 6 kids to ensure 2 survive to adulthood.

And then there's the cost, have you seen the price of 'named' trainers :shocked:

all kids want a phone, TV, laptop/tablet, games console etc etc

Children eh, to be honest, I reckon many families are lucky to afford one ;)

Chris 15-07-2020 17:27
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36043537)
The fertility rate - the average number of children a woman gives birth to

Big families, thing of the past to be honest. Advances in many areas have meant we no longer need 6 kids to ensure 2 survive to adulthood.

And then there's the cost, have you seen the price of 'named' trainers :shocked:

all kids want a phone, TV, laptop/tablet, games console etc etc

Children eh, to be honest, I reckon many families are lucky to afford one ;)
The shrinking size of families was at one time about reduced need to ensure some survived. But now it’s about child-bearing as just one of a broadening range of things a woman can choose to do with her life. It’s an interesting conundrum because it sets that most prized of Western cultural achievements - freedom of individual choice, especially in the sphere of sex equality - against the sense of obligation to perpetuate the species.

There is a very serious imperative to fix this, as it is the labour and the taxes of the young that cares for the old. But by the time you’re 80 years old, you face the consequences of your generation’s choice not to replace itself at the same time as finding you’re way too old to do anything about it.

Today’s BBC report makes some half-hearted suggestions about tax incentives for larger families but the problem is rather more fundamental than that. In the longer run, our conception (pun intended) of the balance between our personal freedoms and our obligations to society is going to have to shift, and simple biology means that is going to have more of an impact on women than on men. Interesting times ahead.

jfman 15-07-2020 18:43
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Considering humans are a virus to the ecosystems around us, is it not the R number?

Chris 15-07-2020 18:44
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36043545)
Considering humans are a virus to the ecosystems around us, is it not the R number?
You are Agent Smith and I claim my £5 :D

Damien 15-07-2020 22:01
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36043542)
Today’s BBC report makes some half-hearted suggestions about tax incentives for larger families but the problem is rather more fundamental than that. In the longer run, our conception (pun intended) of the balance between our personal freedoms and our obligations to society is going to have to shift, and simple biology means that is going to have more of an impact on women than on men. Interesting times ahead.
Further measures to reduce the economic impact on women taking time off. That's really all we can really do as far as I can see. I am not sure what those measures would be but more government intervention to support companies putting their staff on parental leave, working from home more is obviously a recent thing that could help, drastically reducing child care costs....

pip08456 15-07-2020 22:11
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Nah, the planet would benefit from a reduced population. Don't forget we're soon going to be colonising the moon and later Mars!

RichardCoulter 16-07-2020 00:14
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36043542)
The shrinking size of families was at one time about reduced need to ensure some survived. But now it’s about child-bearing as just one of a broadening range of things a woman can choose to do with her life. It’s an interesting conundrum because it sets that most prized of Western cultural achievements - freedom of individual choice, especially in the sphere of sex equality - against the sense of obligation to perpetuate the species.

There is a very serious imperative to fix this, as it is the labour and the taxes of the young that cares for the old. But by the time you’re 80 years old, you face the consequences of your generation’s choice not to replace itself at the same time as finding you’re way too old to do anything about it.

Today’s BBC report makes some half-hearted suggestions about tax incentives for larger families but the problem is rather more fundamental than that. In the longer run, our conception (pun intended) of the balance between our personal freedoms and our obligations to society is going to have to shift, and simple biology means that is going to have more of an impact on women than on men. Interesting times ahead.
IIRC, the news said that Africa would increase (by 2/3?)

As automation increases, there wouldn't be any jobs for the young people that would have been born had things not changed; they would have been an added burden as opposed to helping to keep retired people. As It's imperative that we have to start thinking about the way that we use the Earths resources too, this reduction is a good thing. I think.

Paul 16-07-2020 03:25
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Im pretty sure the human species survived 1000's of years with a much lower population, not sure we need to panic just yet.

Chris 16-07-2020 08:49
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Nobody is talking about extinction, and talk of overall population number misses the point. It is the age profile of the population that is the problem in this scenario. In a welfare state (or anything close to it) the old are cared for by the young, either directly working in social care roles or indirectly by funding them through tax.

Hugh 16-07-2020 09:07
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36043588)
Nobody is talking about extinction, and talk of overall population number misses the point. It is the age profile of the population that is the problem in this scenario. In a welfare state (or anything close to it) the old are cared for by the young, either directly working in social care roles or indirectly by funding them through tax.
Yup - as the last line of the linked article states
Quote:
"The distribution of working-age populations will be crucial to whether humanity prospers or withers."

Mr K 16-07-2020 09:13
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36043581)
Im pretty sure the human species survived 1000's of years with a much lower population, not sure we need to panic just yet.
However we do need to panic about the ageing population in this country. Lots of old people with no one to care or pay taxes to support them. Young immigrants will also have got the message that they're more welcome elsewhere.

Carth 16-07-2020 14:41
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
The ever increasing retirement age is another attempt at 2+2=5

It reduces the pension payout, at the cost of removing an employment opportunity for someone younger, while increasing unemployment benefit costs.

The elderly working longer can also lead to a risk of increasing health issues, with possible hospital care and an increase in sickness payouts, not to mention disruption to employers.

There is of course the other viewpoint . . . the longer you work, the less chance you have of actually reaching retirement age . . . probably financially rewarding for spouses, but I'm not keen myself ;)

boroboi 24-09-2020 06:54
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
So this basically means that populations in "developed" countries is going to dramatically fall...

Populations in "developing" countries will probably continue to rise due to the lack of contraception, education etc which let's be honest, isn't going to change in the next 80 years.

Then we'll all just get out bred.

jfman 24-09-2020 09:41
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Who knows there might be a global pandemic to reduce the population between now and then.

papa smurf 24-09-2020 09:48
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
I stand ready to get the equipment out of mothballs if helps save the human race:naughty:

Pierre 24-09-2020 12:13
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36051334)
Who knows there might be a global pandemic to reduce the population between now and then.
well it had better be a bit more fatal than the current one, which has wiped out a massive 0.000125% of the global population

0.00115% approx 10 time more people die each year from starvation.

jfman 24-09-2020 13:13
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36051355)
well it had better be a bit more fatal than the current one, which has wiped out a massive 0.000125% of the global population

0.00115% approx 10 time more people die each year from starvation.
It’s early days yet. The vast, vast majority of people haven’t been infected yet. The “herd immunity” crowd reckon we need about 4 billion infections with no lasting immunity guaranteed. Longer term health implications, is a second infection worse than the first? So many ways this could go, especially in the developing world.

So many questions up in air I’d refrain from such pessimism (or optimism?) around the total impact.

downquark1 24-09-2020 14:49
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36043588)
Nobody is talking about extinction, and talk of overall population number misses the point. It is the age profile of the population that is the problem in this scenario. In a welfare state (or anything close to it) the old are cared for by the young, either directly working in social care roles or indirectly by funding them through tax.
Whenever this happens the economists come to the politicians and say, "we need to either cut state pensions or have more immigration" and the politicians say "more immigration".

jfman 24-09-2020 15:38
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Essentially though the problem is running the economy like a pozni scheme extracting future revenues (privatisation for example) and spending it today.

tweetiepooh 25-09-2020 09:54
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
That's because the need is now. Or at least the perceived need. The issue happens because demand is higher than expected sometimes because people think it's their right to get <fill in> where the system maybe didn't have <fill in> when designed or budgeted.

Paul 26-09-2020 01:24
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36051358)
It’s early days yet. The vast, vast majority of people haven’t been infected yet. .
The vast Majority wont die from it if/when they catch it.

Sephiroth 26-09-2020 09:12
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36051335)
I stand ready to get the equipment out of mothballs if helps save the human race:naughty:
You’ll need better balls than mothballs!

richard s 28-09-2020 20:12
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
When we have destroyed planet Earth then birth control will not be an issue. I say it is good that birth control is shrinking.

Carth 29-09-2020 14:24
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
I have a sneaky feeling that 'Mother Earth' knows what's happening, and is in the process of resolving the issue ;)

OLD BOY 29-09-2020 19:06
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36043590)
Yup - as the last line of the linked article states
I like the way the media just creates contradictory headlines. One minute it is complaining about too many people taking up resources and contributing to climate change, and when it is clear that the population of the world has started to decrease, that is suddenly bad news.

We cannot have an ever increasing population on this planet. It is a good thing that the size of families is decreasing.

It is true that the governments of the world need to work out how to manage this population decrease to ensure that there is not a demographic emergency such as not having enough younger people to look after the elderly, not enough talent to take over when skilled managers retire, etc. But it is definitely not bad news.

jfman 29-09-2020 19:46
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36052055)
I like the way the media just creates contradictory headlines. One minute it is complaining about too many people taking up resources and contributing to climate change, and when it is clear that the population of the world has started to decrease, that is suddenly bad news.

We cannot have an ever increasing population on this planet. It is a good thing that the size of families is decreasing.

It is true that the governments of the world need to work out how to manage this population decrease to ensure that there is not a demographic emergency such as not having enough younger people to look after the elderly, not enough talent to take over when skilled managers retire, etc. But it is definitely not bad news.
Of course different journalists can approach different articles on the same subject from different viewpoints. At face value, overpopulation is a bad thing, stretching already limited resources in some parts of world. I think most would believe this to be objectively true.

That said, under population, or a declining one puts other pressures out there. The generations who reaped the supposed windfalls of privatisation consigned future generations to paying increased costs with profits being creamed off the top to the Cayman Islands or wherever. Decades of profits sold off in one go to the private sector knowing future generations will pay. This country is in £2 trillion of debt, and the rest of the world combined a ridiculous figure more. People are living longer, with fewer taxpayers to contribute into the pozni scheme.

If an increasing number of people wake up to the fact that this money isn’t “as good as gold” the way it was in the 60s and merely a spreadsheet calculation this will inevitably generate unrest among the declining population that they are being saddled with the debts of their ancestors.

OLD BOY 29-09-2020 20:08
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Oh, dear. Whole populations playing the victim!

jfman 29-09-2020 20:14
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36052067)
Oh, dear. Whole populations playing the victim!
I’d hardly say it’s playing the victim to find that previous generations mortgaged your future to piss it all away in a “low tax economy” with nothing tangible for you to show for it and it turns out now that we need to pay the bill after all you can either pay more tax or pay private industry. Either way you pay. There was, and never has been, a free lunch.

This kind of inequality is unsustainable unless living standards and opportunities improve. Both of which have been stagnating for about 20 years.

Paul 30-09-2020 00:13
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Im sure the population will be getting a boost soon, starting around December. ;)

OLD BOY 01-10-2020 19:43
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36052069)
I’d hardly say it’s playing the victim to find that previous generations mortgaged your future to piss it all away in a “low tax economy” with nothing tangible for you to show for it and it turns out now that we need to pay the bill after all you can either pay more tax or pay private industry. Either way you pay. There was, and never has been, a free lunch.

This kind of inequality is unsustainable unless living standards and opportunities improve. Both of which have been stagnating for about 20 years.
Don’t be daft. We are where we are.

My generation had to pay off the crippling loan with the US for the Second World War but I don’t recollect any of us moaning about it. We just got on with it. We never expected everything to be given to us on a silver platter.

Chris 02-10-2020 07:16
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36052257)
Don’t be daft. We are where we are.

My generation had to pay off the crippling loan with the US for the Second World War but I don’t recollect any of us moaning about it. We just got on with it. We never expected everything to be given to us on a silver platter.
It was not crippling. It was £27 billion in today’s money, which is extremely large but not grossly out of proportion with the national budget. Plus we got 61 years to pay it off. And while paying it off we still managed to set up the NHS, build tens of thousands of council houses and maintain a military throughout the Cold War that was considerably larger than we have today.

Yours is the only generation in history that has ever had everything handed to it on a silver platter, which is why those of us following you have the dubious honour of being the first whose wealth has failed to exceed that of their parents.

Boomers did have it so good, not that it stops them moaning about it.

Paul 02-10-2020 17:14
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36052316)
... which is why those of us following you have the dubious honour of being the first whose wealth has failed to exceed that of their parents.
I wonder who has my "Wealth" :erm:

Chris 02-10-2020 22:18
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36052413)
I wonder who has my "Wealth" :erm:
Much of it is locked up in property. Boomers made their way up the housing ladder with relative ease, as high inflation reduced the value of their mortgages even as their endowment policies bloomed. As those policies neared maturity, many of their holders voted to demutualise the building societies that issued them, taking in some cases huge profits, paying off their mortgages and in some cases using the substantial excess money to get into the buy-to-let business.

downquark1 02-10-2020 23:11
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36052457)
Much of it is locked up in property. Boomers made their way up the housing ladder with relative ease, as high inflation reduced the value of their mortgages even as their endowment policies bloomed. As those policies neared maturity, many of their holders voted to demutualise the building societies that issued them, taking in some cases huge profits, paying off their mortgages and in some cases using the substantial excess money to get into the buy-to-let business.
Didn't they also have higher interest rates on the mortgage?

papa smurf 03-10-2020 08:44
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36052457)
Much of it is locked up in property. Boomers made their way up the housing ladder with relative ease, as high inflation reduced the value of their mortgages even as their endowment policies bloomed. As those policies neared maturity, many of their holders voted to demutualise the building societies that issued them, taking in some cases huge profits, paying off their mortgages and in some cases using the substantial excess money to get into the buy-to-let business.
Mortgage rates went through the roof in the 90s and endowments bottomed out and didn't reach anywhere near their predicted amounts, someone has mis sold you a crock of shit.

jfman 03-10-2020 08:51
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36052257)
Don’t be daft. We are where we are.

My generation had to pay off the crippling loan with the US for the Second World War but I don’t recollect any of us moaning about it. We just got on with it. We never expected everything to be given to us on a silver platter.
Aye okay, Uncle Albert.

Paul 03-10-2020 19:11
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36052457)
Boomers made their way up the housing ladder with relative ease, as high inflation reduced the value of their mortgages even as their endowment policies bloomed.
Whatever you are drinking is good stuff.
Someones been feeding you a load of BS.

I can assure you I did not make my way "up the housing ladder with relative ease".

papa smurf 03-10-2020 19:56
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36052535)
Whatever you are drinking is good stuff.
Someones been feeding you a load of BS.

I can assure you I did not make my way "up the housing ladder with relative ease".
My 25 year mortgage ended up taking 30 years to pay off once the endowment policy failed miserably,my property empire consists of 1 house:(

Chris 03-10-2020 20:05
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
The average British man is also 5 foot 9 tall and I’m not, but that doesn’t make the average untrue.

I’m talking in generalities, obviously these things didn’t go the same way for everyone. But for the generation born between 1945 and 1955 (the classic baby boomer generation) the statistics say, this is what occurred.

Paul, you’re not a boomer anyway, you’re early Generation X. Don’t know about you Papa, you might just be an unlucky boomer ;)

tweetiepooh 05-10-2020 09:52
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
My parents' endowments did make enough to clear the mortgage with some to spare and while they did have high rates the level was also quite low compared to how my dad's income eventually increased - not always easy though.

I started my "endowments" before I bought my first house and thankfully my wife had inherited money so when we did move we didn't need to increase our borrowing. We also switched to a repayment mortgage as it became clear the endowment would fall short though eventually one did hit target and while the other didn't we could still pay off mortgage and have enough to renew my car and a bit more.

I would hate to think of starting off these days as prices are so much above earnings.

But I don't think it's just the boomers hogging the houses but investment companies, sometimes overseas, who own large amounts of property and they won't be as affected by downturn in population.

Sephiroth 05-10-2020 10:56
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36052714)
My parents' endowments did make enough to clear the mortgage with some to spare and while they did have high rates the level was also quite low compared to how my dad's income eventually increased - not always easy though.

I started my "endowments" before I bought my first house and thankfully my wife had inherited money so when we did move we didn't need to increase our borrowing. We also switched to a repayment mortgage as it became clear the endowment would fall short though eventually one did hit target and while the other didn't we could still pay off mortgage and have enough to renew my car and a bit more.

I would hate to think of starting off these days as prices are so much above earnings.

But I don't think it's just the boomers hogging the houses but investment companies, sometimes overseas, who own large amounts of property and they won't be as affected by downturn in population.
Please don't take this rebuke from me as personal to you.
But the term "boomers" is offensive. It's a category, emphasised by people such as David Willetts as being a valid target for wealth taxes. (https://www.politicshome.com/news/ar...minister-warns). Also that loser Javid took a pop at people born in the 40s and 50s. Disgraceful - we elect those idiots.

Here are the facts (on matters of fairness) that these idiots choose to ignore:

1. That generation rebuilt the population following WW2;

2. That generation worked hard, paid their taxes and bought their houses;

3. At the end of their working lives, it was obvious and reasonable that they'd have gained wealth;

4. To be essentially blamed by politicians for being alive is disgraceful;

5. It is the policies of successive governments that have brought us to the position of ridiculous house prices.

People of my generation should not be labelled otherwise we might have to add a "B" to BAME and that would be the final insult.

Chris 05-10-2020 11:24
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36052719)
Please don't take this rebuke from me as personal to you.
But the term "boomers" is offensive. It's a category, emphasised by people such as David Willetts as being a valid target for wealth taxes. (https://www.politicshome.com/news/ar...minister-warns). Also that loser Javid took a pop at people born in the 40s and 50s. Disgraceful - we elect those idiots.

Here are the facts (on matters of fairness) that these idiots choose to ignore:

1. That generation rebuilt the population following WW2;

2. That generation worked hard, paid their taxes and bought their houses;

3. At the end of their working lives, it was obvious and reasonable that they'd have gained wealth;

4. To be essentially blamed by politicians for being alive is disgraceful;

5. It is the policies of successive governments that have brought us to the position of ridiculous house prices.

People of my generation should not be labelled otherwise we might have to add a "B" to BAME and that would be the final insult.
Wind your neck in.

'Boomer' is a contraction of 'Baby Boomer' and is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate category used in population studies.

To answer you point by point:

1. No they didn't. The British population has been skyrocketing since the industrial revolution. In comparison to the rate of growth since 1800, deaths in both world wars barely register on the overall total. Yes, they contributed to a post-war baby boom, but 'rebuilt' is hyperbole.

2. They worked no harder and paid no more tax than anyone since. If you're trying to paint the baby boomer generation as somehow more virtuous than those that followed, then no, sorry, it won't wash. As for 'bought their houses'; well that's the exact point, isn't it. Economic conditions allowed them to do so in a way that is no longer possible in the UK. The pattern of property ownership amongst the postwar generation is a function of economics influenced by politics, not the protestant work ethic.

3. Not at issue.

4. A straw man.

5. Governments enact policies they put to voters at elections. It is well known that even today, policies are aimed squarely at boomers in retirement because they're the ones that vote in greatest numbers. Throughout their lives, the baby boomer generation (and, to be fair, some of the previous one, born in the 1930s and early 40s and too young to fight) have voted for policies that have preferred their interests.

Even implying that this issue is in any way equivalent to the prejudices faced by BAME citizens of the UK is very silly. The vast majority of these people came to the UK from the 1950s onwards to do the jobs boomers and their parents refused to, and have not shared in the wealth created in the UK in the second half of the 20th century in anything like the same way.

Sephiroth 06-10-2020 15:55
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36052726)
Wind your neck in.

'Boomer' is a contraction of 'Baby Boomer' and is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate category used in population studies.

To answer you point by point:

1. No they didn't. The British population has been skyrocketing since the industrial revolution. In comparison to the rate of growth since 1800, deaths in both world wars barely register on the overall total. Yes, they contributed to a post-war baby boom, but 'rebuilt' is hyperbole.

2. They worked no harder and paid no more tax than anyone since. If you're trying to paint the baby boomer generation as somehow more virtuous than those that followed, then no, sorry, it won't wash. As for 'bought their houses'; well that's the exact point, isn't it. Economic conditions allowed them to do so in a way that is no longer possible in the UK. The pattern of property ownership amongst the postwar generation is a function of economics influenced by politics, not the protestant work ethic.

3. Not at issue.

4. A straw man.

5. Governments enact policies they put to voters at elections. It is well known that even today, policies are aimed squarely at boomers in retirement because they're the ones that vote in greatest numbers. Throughout their lives, the baby boomer generation (and, to be fair, some of the previous one, born in the 1930s and early 40s and too young to fight) have voted for policies that have preferred their interests.

Even implying that this issue is in any way equivalent to the prejudices faced by BAME citizens of the UK is very silly. The vast majority of these people came to the UK from the 1950s onwards to do the jobs boomers and their parents refused to, and have not shared in the wealth created in the UK in the second half of the 20th century in anything like the same way.
What a load of tosh you've written.

Of course current conditions have been influenced by politics - bad politics. And now those thieves want to tap the hard working socio-economic group born not too long after WW2.

Your point of view that "boomers" have voted for policies that have preferred their interest is totally disingenuous. Parties at the helm have changed hands so many times and that's because none of them deliver their policies, except possibly Thatcher.

You also misrepresent my reference to BAME. I obviously meant that you might as well attach another "B" to the term so that we are grouped into a minority that is being unfairly labelled and treated.

The term "baby boomer" is condescending and a convenience for political distinction. I don't like being grouped in that way and nor do any of my other acquaintances who have stopped to think about it.

papa smurf 06-10-2020 16:07
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36052867)
What a load of tosh you've written.

Of course current conditions have been influenced by politics - bad politics. And now those thieves want to tap the hard working socio-economic group born not too long after WW2.

Your point of view that "boomers" have voted for policies that have preferred their interest is totally disingenuous. Parties at the helm have changed hands so many times and that's because none of them deliver their policies, except possibly Thatcher.

You also misrepresent my reference to BAME. I obviously meant that you might as well attach another "B" to the term so that we are grouped into a minority that is being unfairly labelled and treated.

The term "baby boomer" is condescending and a convenience for political distinction. I don't like being grouped in that way and nor do any of my other acquaintances who have stopped to think about it.
If he was one of mine i'd stop his pocket money and cut off his comics .

Sephiroth 06-10-2020 16:19
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36052869)
If he was one of mine i'd stop his pocket money and cut off his comics .
You've tempted me, Papa. That's not all I'd cut off,

Only joking!

Damien 06-10-2020 16:20
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36052867)
Your point of view that "boomers" have voted for policies that have preferred their interest is totally disingenuous. Parties at the helm have changed hands so many times and that's because none of them deliver their policies, except possibly Thatcher.
There are loads of policies aimed at boomers. The whole method of addressing the problem with house prices by essentially getting the government to underwrite homes (Help to Buy, the soon-to-be 95% mortgages backed by the government) is to make sure they don't let houses prices fall by increasing supply.

The average price of homes since 1970 has gone from an average 4x salary to 8x.

What would actually help people buy homes is bringing that average down. Banks won't lend that ratio. However the risk of negative equirty plus people who view homes as a investment mean that's not going to happen anytime soon.

It's ridiculous the current Government's policy is to underwrite more housing debt.

Quote:
Of course current conditions have been influenced by politics - bad politics. And now those thieves want to tap the hard working socio-economic group born not too long after WW2.
How do they want to tap into it?

The Government has aimed most of their cuts at younger people whereas the biggest increase in benefits was aimed at pensoners with the triple-lock. The money isn't coming from that generation.

Nothing will either, it's a big voting block so I wouldn't worry so much about it.

Sephiroth 06-10-2020 16:55
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36052872)
There are loads of policies aimed at boomers. The whole method of addressing the problem with house prices by essentially getting the government to underwrite homes (Help to Buy, the soon-to-be 95% mortgages backed by the government) is to make sure they don't let houses prices fall by increasing supply.

The average price of homes since 1970 has gone from an average 4x salary to 8x.

What would actually help people buy homes is bringing that average down. Banks won't lend that ratio. However the risk of negative equirty plus people who view homes as a investment mean that's not going to happen anytime soon.

It's ridiculous the current Government's policy is to underwrite more housing debt.



How do they want to tap into it?

The Government has aimed most of their cuts at younger people whereas the biggest increase in benefits was aimed at pensoners with the triple-lock. The money isn't coming from that generation.

Nothing will either, it's a big voting block so I wouldn't worry so much about it.
You make my point perfectly well.

Quote:
There are loads of policies aimed at boomers. The whole method of addressing the problem with house prices by essentially getting the government to underwrite homes (Help to Buy, the soon-to-be 95% mortgages backed by the government) is to make sure they don't let houses prices fall by increasing supply.
Rubbish. How as any of that helped people born in the 40s/50s?

Quote:
The average price of homes since 1970 has gone from an average 4x salary to 8x.
Exactly my point. Poor government policy has allowed this. Raiding the 40s/50s birth groups, which is what Javid and other postulated, would be pure theft. Hyperbole or not.

Quote:
The Government has aimed most of their cuts at younger people whereas the biggest increase in benefits was aimed at pensioners with the triple-lock. The money isn't coming from that generation.
You have a mild point there in so far as the Tories wanted to lock in the pensioners' vote. But the 40s/50s birth group paid their taxes (including up to 95% or summat for highest earners), paid their NI and it seems to me to be right that the government should protect their pensions because most of them have no other income. Before you go into criticising the triple lock, I understand and accept the rational for reducing it to a double lock in present fiscal circumstances.


Just about the only thing that governments have got right is the financial side of Covid. In all other respects, they have incompetently led us to the argument we're having.

"Baby boomer" is a condescending, insulting categorisation of a hard working subset of the population - who are obviously on the way out due to age.

Damien 06-10-2020 17:15
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36052875)
[
Rubbish. How as any of that helped people born in the 40s/50s?
They would have been in a prime age to buy and around 1970-1980. It was an ideal time to buy. Since then home-building has declined futher driving up the cost of the assets:

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2020/10/4.png

Government policy has been to continue to protect those prices.

Quote:
Exactly my point. Poor government policy has allowed this. Raiding the 40s/50s birth groups, which is what Javid and other postulated, would be pure theft. Hyperbole or not.
It's intentional policy to protect housing as an investment.

Quote:
You have a mild point there in so far as the Tories wanted to lock in the pensioners' vote. But the 40s/50s birth group paid their taxes (including up to 95% or summat for highest earners), paid their NI and it seems to me to be right that the government should protect their pensions because most of them have no other income. Before you go into criticising the triple lock, I understand and accept the rational for reducing it to a double lock in present fiscal circumstances.
There are all sorts of issues around pensions that we can't really get into here but simply put I do not really support reducing pensions. I think there is a grossly unfair age inequality in where the burden of austeity fell and how the current economy further penalises young people but it's not fair to cause pensoners to fall into.

But I also don't believe that whilst the people born in the 40/50s are a significant voting block that we'll see change to address these other problems.

downquark1 06-10-2020 17:29
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Most media narratives are built to appeal to the prejudices of boomers. Although in many regards I think millennials are worse.

Paul 06-10-2020 19:59
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36052543)
Paul, you’re not a boomer anyway, you’re early Generation X. Don’t know about you Papa, you might just be an unlucky boomer ;)
Sorry, but I do count, its 1946 - 1964. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers
Quote:
Baby boomers are the demographic cohort following the Silent Generation and preceding Generation X. The generation is generally defined as people born from 1946 to 1964

Chris 06-10-2020 20:00
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
OK Boomer :D

Hugh 06-10-2020 20:24
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36052894)
OK Boomer :D
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DevotedWhi...restricted.gif

:D

papa smurf 06-10-2020 20:40
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
I get all this boomer rubbish off my kids at least once per week,you bought all the houses ,gold plated pensions,gas guzzling cars,boat in private marina,you ruined the planet for us, my youngest moaned his generation can't afford to buy a house i replied but you own a house and it's worth more than mine,all i got was yea but yea but, kids eh;)

1andrew1 06-10-2020 23:55
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36052867)

The term "baby boomer" is condescending and a convenience for political distinction. I don't like being grouped in that way and nor do any of my other acquaintances who have stopped to think about it.
In what way is it condescending? I genuinely think you're getting overly sensitive to what is only a widely-accepted name for a demographic cohort.

papa smurf 07-10-2020 09:45
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
What kind of person calls someone the B word, just what has this world come to when your given a badge of dishonour according to when you were born :help:

Chris 07-10-2020 09:54
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
1 Attachment(s)
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1602060881

tweetiepooh 07-10-2020 10:02
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Well I don't want to see my investment in my home diminish why should it? But surely the solution isn't going to be to build over more and more land with expensive smaller and smaller houses (e.g. 5 bed houses, no garden and rooms too small for existing furniture).

And Covid-19 is going to cause something interesting if more people now want to move out of population centres putting more demand on smaller towns/cities and rural communities. Will vacated properties in population centres be saleable, affordable even? These are places that often are desired by singles/couples being close to work and entertainment but is that so attractive now?

Chris 07-10-2020 10:33
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36052933)
Well I don't want to see my investment in my home diminish why should it? But surely the solution isn't going to be to build over more and more land with expensive smaller and smaller houses (e.g. 5 bed houses, no garden and rooms too small for existing furniture).

And Covid-19 is going to cause something interesting if more people now want to move out of population centres putting more demand on smaller towns/cities and rural communities. Will vacated properties in population centres be saleable, affordable even? These are places that often are desired by singles/couples being close to work and entertainment but is that so attractive now?
There's no reason why you would want the value of your home to fall. You've been told it's an investment your entire adult life and you, and many tens of thousands of others, have planned your finances and maybe your retirement on that basis.

This however is the very nature of the problem. A family home is supposed to be a place to bring up a family, not a way of beating an unpredictable stock market or low bank savings rates. To turn family homes into a store of value it has been necessary to do to them exactly what you have to do to any commodity whose value you wish to increase - restrict supply.

The equation really is this simple. If there are enough nice homes for people to buy and live in, then the housing crisis will end, and young people will be able to move out of their parents' homes and buy their own place before they've passed their 30th birthday saving a fortune for a deposit.

Also, however, if there are enough such homes, the relative scarcity of your home will decrease and its value will stop going up faster than inflation. It may stop going up altogether. It may even fall.

So the question is, which is more important to you ... your own home value or the housing prospects of a generation of young adults who can't presently afford to buy at all? That's the issue that the political parties we vote for wrestle with, and for the last 30 years none of them, when in power, has taken any steps that would increase supply sufficiently, because it would have a notable economic effect on that part of the population that votes in the greatest numbers. In the study of demographics, that part of the population is commonly identified as the baby boomer generation.

@Seph, if you want to get faux offended by the term 'baby boomer', try writing to all the university geography departments that use it routinely in their population studies, see how far you get. ;)

Hugh 07-10-2020 11:31
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36052925)
What kind of person calls someone the B word, just what has this world come to when your given a badge of dishonour according to when you were born :help:
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1602066206

1andrew1 07-10-2020 11:46
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36052944)
If people get easily offended by the widely-accepted term of Baby Boomer Generation then they could be in danger of bringing the term Snowflake Generation upon themselves. ;)

Hugh 07-10-2020 12:23
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36052945)
If people get easily offended by the widely-accepted term of Baby Boomer Generation then they could be in danger of bringing the term Snowflake Generation upon themselves. ;)
Trigger alert!

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...2&d=1602069780

Sephiroth 07-10-2020 13:27
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36052918)
In what way is it condescending? I genuinely think you're getting overly sensitive to what is only a widely-accepted name for a demographic cohort.
I don’t think people should be classified for political convenience and that includes ither classifications.

You should be supporting me.

Stuart 07-10-2020 13:32
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36052714)
But I don't think it's just the boomers hogging the houses but investment companies, sometimes overseas, who own large amounts of property and they won't be as affected by downturn in population.
It's not just the boomers, as you say. I read an article in the guardian a while back. I don't have a link, but the author found a residential skyscraper in Elephant and Castle where apparently every apartment and flat had sold. He then checked the electoral roll, and found less than half were registered. Now, in fairness, when registering to vote, you don't have to be listed on the electoral roll, so it's likely there are people living in that block that aren't registered, but a few years laters, the Standard did a similar article where they tried to track down the occupants of Centre Point (the tower on Tottenham Court Road). At the time, they were only able to contact a few people, despite apparently high sales. One student (whose very wealthy parents had bought her a flat near the top of the tower for several million pounds) said it was lovely, as she had virtually unrestricted access to the facilities provided (gym, resident's bar etc). She was also apparently the only person living on her floor of the building. Each floor of Centre Point is massive.

Now, on to boomers. I'm not saying Boomers or Gen Xers have things easy. Every generation has it's problems, but in terms of housing, millenials are in a position where they are having to save up more than a lot of houses costed 30 years ago for a deposit before they can even be considered for a mortgage, and then when they actually do get enough for a mortgage, they are having to borrow up to 6 times their annual salary. Even when I was younger, it was likely 2 - 3 times your annual salary. We are getting to a situation where it is entirely possible that future homebuyers will normally pass on their mortgage to their children when they die.

Still, I am off topic a little.

1andrew1 07-10-2020 13:50
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36052949)
I don’t think people should be classified for political convenience and that includes ither classifications.

You should be supporting me.
I don't see this as being done for political reasons, but for demographic ones in order to help us understand the country better.

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 36052951)
It's not just the boomers, as you say. I read an article in the guardian a while back. I don't have a link, but the author found a residential skyscraper in Elephant and Castle where apparently every apartment and flat had sold. He then checked the electoral roll, and found less than half were registered. Now, in fairness, when registering to vote, you don't have to be listed on the electoral roll, so it's likely there are people living in that block that aren't registered, but a few years laters, the Standard did a similar article where they tried to track down the occupants of Centre Point (the tower on Tottenham Court Road). At the time, they were only able to contact a few people, despite apparently high sales. One student (whose very wealthy parents had bought her a flat near the top of the tower for several million pounds) said it was lovely, as she had virtually unrestricted access to the facilities provided (gym, resident's bar etc). She was also apparently the only person living on her floor of the building. Each floor of Centre Point is massive.

Now, you may dismiss the source, but this is far from the only article I've see
I've read similar articles too. However, they are a drop in the ocean compared to the 3.9 million homes we apparently need built. (Many other articles on this subject too including here)
As well as investors holding onto property who make their money due to the increase in value of the property without it being occupied, a bigger issue is investors holding onto land for many years and not building houses whilst the land rises in value.

papa smurf 07-10-2020 17:33
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36052945)
If people get easily offended by the widely-accepted term of Baby Boomer Generation then they could be in danger of bringing the term Snowflake Generation upon themselves. ;)
You have no idea how it feels to be Boomer shamed by a bunch of jealous poor people with nothing to look forward to but a life of poverty and wishing they were older:)

Not Hugh of course he's one of us.

Pierre 07-10-2020 21:01
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
What are we arguing about again?

Paul 08-10-2020 01:17
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36052949)
I don’t think people should be classified for political convenience and that includes ither classifications.

You should be supporting me.
I am a boomer. :)

Sorry, but I think you're being ridiculous.

tweetiepooh 08-10-2020 14:32
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36052939)
There's no reason why you would want the value of your home to fall. You've been told it's an investment your entire adult life and you, and many tens of thousands of others, have planned your finances and maybe your retirement on that basis.

This however is the very nature of the problem. A family home is supposed to be a place to bring up a family, not a way of beating an unpredictable stock market or low bank savings rates. To turn family homes into a store of value it has been necessary to do to them exactly what you have to do to any commodity whose value you wish to increase - restrict supply.

The equation really is this simple. If there are enough nice homes for people to buy and live in, then the housing crisis will end, and young people will be able to move out of their parents' homes and buy their own place before they've passed their 30th birthday saving a fortune for a deposit.

Also, however, if there are enough such homes, the relative scarcity of your home will decrease and its value will stop going up faster than inflation. It may stop going up altogether. It may even fall.

So the question is, which is more important to you ... your own home value or the housing prospects of a generation of young adults who can't presently afford to buy at all? That's the issue that the political parties we vote for wrestle with, and for the last 30 years none of them, when in power, has taken any steps that would increase supply sufficiently, because it would have a notable economic effect on that part of the population that votes in the greatest numbers. In the study of demographics, that part of the population is commonly identified as the baby boomer generation.

@Seph, if you want to get faux offended by the term 'baby boomer', try writing to all the university geography departments that use it routinely in their population studies, see how far you get. ;)
Well it is true that my house is an investment, after all we paid for it with a mortgage and have spent money on it too.

BUT it is primarily a home so it's less critical to me if the value drops.

It does seem though that the long term solution isn't to simply build more stock in desirable areas and the very reasons they are desirable can be that it isn't overcrowded. What do we do with the less desirable areas? To they simply remain sink estates, "controlled" by those with "muscle" or do we try to bring those areas up? With the increase in remote working forced by CV19 and increased capacity in communication the absence of local employment is less of an issue. And if enough "money" moves in can it have a reversing effect of it leaving? Can that "money" help build up local businesses so that they have more money and so forth? Yes it is easier to pull down than up, a few "malcontents" can cause the "money" to leave.

So rather than simply building new stock, why not repair/refurbish etc existing, empty stock, or even rebuild in those areas? But do it in a way that will support the existing community, new GP surgeries, shopping, transport etc. Make those places desirable, lift those places and their communities up.

But with the topic on here, if eventually we are going to see changes in demographics, if birthrate has dropped and remains lower eventually do we see a decrease in population with also changes the supply/demand equation?

Another issue isn't simply with starter homes but the huge difference in price between smaller and larger. If the gaps are too big to allow people to move up, they then invest (extend) where they are and not release the smaller properties. And then once "the family" has the bigger property even when the children have flown the nest the family home is kept for family gatherings. My mum lives on her own in the family home, it's central to the rest of us and a place where all 3 of her children's families can come at the same time with all the grandchildren.

1andrew1 08-10-2020 14:56
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36053043)
Well it is true that my house is an investment, after all we paid for it with a mortgage and have spent money on it too.

BUT it is primarily a home so it's less critical to me if the value drops.

It does seem though that the long term solution isn't to simply build more stock in desirable areas and the very reasons they are desirable can be that it isn't overcrowded. What do we do with the less desirable areas? To they simply remain sink estates, "controlled" by those with "muscle" or do we try to bring those areas up? With the increase in remote working forced by CV19 and increased capacity in communication the absence of local employment is less of an issue. And if enough "money" moves in can it have a reversing effect of it leaving? Can that "money" help build up local businesses so that they have more money and so forth? Yes it is easier to pull down than up, a few "malcontents" can cause the "money" to leave.

So rather than simply building new stock, why not repair/refurbish etc existing, empty stock, or even rebuild in those areas? But do it in a way that will support the existing community, new GP surgeries, shopping, transport etc. Make those places desirable, lift those places and their communities up.

But with the topic on here, if eventually we are going to see changes in demographics, if birthrate has dropped and remains lower eventually do we see a decrease in population with also changes the supply/demand equation?

Another issue isn't simply with starter homes but the huge difference in price between smaller and larger. If the gaps are too big to allow people to move up, they then invest (extend) where they are and not release the smaller properties. And then once "the family" has the bigger property even when the children have flown the nest the family home is kept for family gatherings. My mum lives on her own in the family home, it's central to the rest of us and a place where all 3 of her children's families can come at the same time with all the grandchildren.
There are 216,00 empty homes according to the Big Issue but the capacity needed was 3.91m homes so sadly nowhere near enough.

tweetiepooh 10-10-2020 11:32
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053050)
There are 216,00 empty homes according to the Big Issue but the capacity needed was 3.91m homes so sadly nowhere near enough.
But that is a start and if we can get more shared occupancy that would also help. We could make it less attractive to have second homes, holiday homes etc. Make it more attractive to build starter homes - many estates around us are mostly larger dwellings (still no garden) and much more expensive. It's almost certainly that building 5 detached houses is more profitable that 10 semi's or 20 maisonettes that could occupy the same space - but then parking would be an issue.

And what about vacant flats/apartments? Are they counted in the Big Issue figures?

Sephiroth 10-10-2020 15:45
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
There is a really simple answer that does not affect anyone's right to a 2nd home and other punishing policies.

Councils should be incentivised by government, undoubtedly through general taxation, to construct social/council housing particularly on their brownfield sites but obviously not restricted in this way. Targets should be set and that would include dealing with homelessness (UK residents, of course).

I'll mention it to Sir John.

Hugh 10-10-2020 17:07
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Major?

Sephiroth 10-10-2020 17:13
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053246)
Major?
Trust you not to discuss the substantive point.

Hugh 10-10-2020 20:14
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36053248)
Trust you not to discuss the substantive point.
Trust you to name drop someone who has very little influence in the current day party...

I suppose I shouldn’t mention Major and Redwood together, as Major got nearly three time the votes in the Leadership contest...

Sephiroth 10-10-2020 21:31
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053252)
Trust you to name drop someone who has very little influence in the current day party...

I suppose I shouldn’t mention Major and Redwood together, as Major got nearly three time the votes in the Leadership contest...
You could still have debated the substantive point instead of being irritating.

Damien 10-10-2020 22:24
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36053244)
Councils should be incentivised by government, undoubtedly through general taxation, to construct social/council housing particularly on their brownfield sites but obviously not restricted in this way. Targets should be set and that would include dealing with homelessness (UK residents, of course).
This is an idea that has been mentioned many times as well as making it easier to buy up these brownfield sites and/or confiscate land from developers who aren't using it.

But there is a disincentive for Governments to dramatically increase supply.

Hugh 10-10-2020 23:50
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36053256)
You could still have debated the substantive point instead of being irritating.
Why debate with something I agree with - any credible measure that increases both social and affordable private housing can only be a good thing.

Sephiroth 11-10-2020 00:20
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053262)
Why debate with something I agree with - any credible measure that increases both social and affordable private housing can only be a good thing.
Then please say so rather than being provocative, sneering and unpleasant.

Paul 11-10-2020 01:27
Re: Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
 
Enough, stop with the childish remarks.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum