Social Cleansing Or Lucky Bleeders?

[Atheist-Lite]

Looks like it, yes... if they are being given a choice between unemployment and homelessness...

They prefer the marginal five or ten quid between social and private housing benefits in their own pockets rather than a private landlords. I've been in that crowd. They are not interested in work so Stoke it is.

[Svartalf]

and how do you know those people are not employed already or seriously interested in it?
There are areas where it is impossible to afford lodging if you don't have decent wages... and I don't mean luxury housing.
and given what people your side do on minimum wages, I'm surprised they aren't taking the kids out of school to make them work...

[PsychoSerenity]

I think it's one of the inevitable consequences of unrestricted capitalism - increasing geographical concentrations of wealth (and the counterpart, geographical poverty). Markets work reasonably well for assigning value when everyone is on a reasonably level footing, but the further they tip from equality, the steeper the gradient gets. Far too many of the houses in this country are owned by private landlords or effectively owned by banks and investors through mortgages etc - most of these people are simply profiting off their ownership while doing nothing productive for society. Parasitic rentier capitalism. They want the house prices and rents to keep rising in the areas they've invested in. The best way to fix this would be to cap rents and house prices based on the size and quality of the house, not allowing location as part of the valuation, and then buy back (or build new) a good number of houses for social housing so more homes are owned by a greater percentage of the population. But I don't expect it to happen any time soon as it would really hurt the wealthy.

[Svartalf]

So what happens when the Lords are on the Thames and the servant dwell on the Trent?

Capitalism can be a fine motivator, but it sure sure leads to abysmally stupid situations, all caused by greed and lack of foresight or any of the finer human qualities.

[Mysturji]

Looks like it, yes... if they are being given a choice between unemployment and homelessness...

I think the vast majority of them are already unemployed.
The choice is between being given the use of a house 130 miles away from all your friends and family, or living on the streets.
Some would say that being given a place to live in effectively rent free is a gift horse that should not be looked in the mouth, though I can't help wondering about the reasons and motives behind this policy.
After all, the Jubilympics are coming up, and rented accommodation prices around London are about to skyrocket!

[Svartalf]

So basically, this would be a gift to landlords... dammit, what did I say about Jack Ketch and hemp?

[MrJonno]

Bare in mind in the UK local government has a legal responsibility to house people and you can prosecute them if they fail in this duty (you can legally make yourself homeless through, getting drunk and beating up the neighbours etc0

[Tyrannical]

So basically, this would be a gift to landlords... dammit, what did I say about Jack Ketch and hemp?

Under supply & demand theory, it does prop up property prices. If a third of renters had to suddenly move from an area because it became too expensive, rent prices would lower.

[Atheist-Lite]

Every intervention will distort the market but left to itself the market would be self-correcting. Those who can't afford to live should be allowed to die in specially designed dying rooms with their fav music and the warmth and even a little time with a lady/man of pleasure, before the fatal injection of heroin and lights out. Like it is now but more humane and being codified less at risk of being a killing room.

[MrJonno]

There is nothing remotely approaching a free market in housing anywhere in the world. Locals tend to get very fussy about what is built on their neighbours land even through they don't own it.

I'm actually strangely for me in favour of more capitalism in housing but that basically means saying no to local democracy

[PsychoSerenity]

There is nothing remotely approaching a free market in housing anywhere in the world. Locals tend to get very fussy about what is built on their neighbours land even through they don't own it.

I'm actually strangely for me in favour of more capitalism in housing but that basically means saying no to local democracy

But locals being fussy about new buildings, planning permission etc. is part of capitalism. - in the same way as media companies pushing forward copyright laws, or monopolies buying up and closing down rival products. It's the wealthy protecting their own investment.

[MrJonno]

There is nothing remotely approaching a free market in housing anywhere in the world. Locals tend to get very fussy about what is built on their neighbours land even through they don't own it.

I'm actually strangely for me in favour of more capitalism in housing but that basically means saying no to local democracy

But locals being fussy about new buildings, planning permission etc. is part of capitalism. - in the same way as media companies pushing forward copyright laws, or monopolies buying up and closing down rival products. It's the wealthy protecting their own investment.

How can planning permission be part of capitalism?, in a free market you buy the land and unless it directly damages your neighbour you should be able to do whatever you want on it. Does building a brothel next to your house physically cause yours to collapse?.

There are reasons to have some sort of planning permission but its group social(ist) democratic idea not a capitalist one

[Svartalf]

So basically, this would be a gift to landlords... dammit, what did I say about Jack Ketch and hemp?

Under supply & demand theory, it does prop up property prices. If a third of renters had to suddenly move from an area because it became too expensive, rent prices would lower.

a) not if those renters were evicted just before a special event drove demand through the roof for several months.
b) This is fucking London, homehunters are a farthing a gross, landlords won't have any incentive to drop prices... OK, after summer they might go down from simply exhorbitant to mere gouging, but they ain't going back to reasonable for the kind of accomodation involved, unless something is done to make landlords remain decent...

[PsychoSerenity]

There is nothing remotely approaching a free market in housing anywhere in the world. Locals tend to get very fussy about what is built on their neighbours land even through they don't own it.

I'm actually strangely for me in favour of more capitalism in housing but that basically means saying no to local democracy

But locals being fussy about new buildings, planning permission etc. is part of capitalism. - in the same way as media companies pushing forward copyright laws, or monopolies buying up and closing down rival products. It's the wealthy protecting their own investment.

How can planning permission be part of capitalism?, in a free market you buy the land and unless it directly damages your neighbour you should be able to do whatever you want on it. Does building a brothel next to your house physically cause yours to collapse?.

There are reasons to have some sort of planning permission but its group social(ist) democratic idea not a capitalist one

Because capitalism isn't really about free markets. It's about ownership. Owning capital and profiting from it. And as the markets get more and more unbalanced, those in power will make markets more free in some areas where it benefits them, but less free in other areas where it also benefits them.

In this case it's usually not the actual owners that would protest the building of a brothel next door. The actual ownership resides mostly with the mortgage lenders, and they've already got a contract to protect them. The ones that have to protest are those that live there, because if the building of the brothel (or anything else) lowers the values of their homes too much, they'll be stuck in negative equity and get fucked by the banks.

[MrJonno]

You may own property but does that doesnt give you the right to determine its value, if someone does something to your neighbours house and reduces your property value surely its tough.

If I own an Apple 3000 and they release and Apple 4000 , your property is now worthless but that hardly gives you a veto on Apples releasing a new product.

Quite simply if you own a house in a rural area and someone builds a tower block with a 1000 people in it your house will go down in value but what capitalist justiication is there for someone to not be allowed to do so (there are local democratic ones)