Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born

[tweetiepooh]

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?

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

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.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

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]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

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]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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]

What are we arguing about again?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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]

Originally Posted by Chris

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]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

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]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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?