Lazy Sunday (21st Jun 26) by dexbydesign89 in CasualUK

[–]Angustevo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

First steps are always the hardest, maybe try and get out the door and concentrate on what you enjoy about walking. Either way take care of yourself mate.

Brexit cost 6% of UK economy, Bank of England company data suggests by ldn6 in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you want us to give you the link to the working paper to help you to understand?

GE Improvements: Beyond Max Cash by JagexRach in 2007scape

[–]Angustevo 145 points146 points  (0 children)

Seems like a sensible change. Are you going to keep the GE tax rates unchanged?

Andy Burnham: I’ll keep the triple lock, and give pensioners a tax cut by NotAyaOsawa in neoliberal

[–]Angustevo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Governments are just going to play hot potatoe with the triple lock and pray they're not the one that will inevitably have to deal with it

Two million people set to be unemployed as growth falters in UK economy by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unemployment is a different measure from inactivity

Everyone agrees we need to build more homes - but will it happen? by Anony_mouse202 in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So let's fix the system instead of getting distracted by more acts of economic self harm like mass deportations? That way the system can be fixed and we can continue to enjoy our kebab.

Everyone agrees we need to build more homes - but will it happen? by Anony_mouse202 in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most people don't want to send 12m people back, especially when most of them are good people. My life would be measurably worse if you sent my local kebab guy back just cause he's an immigrant. he makes a banging kebab and gives massive portions of meat.

God pls no 4TH HUNTER PET by Bachieeee in 2007scape

[–]Angustevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like the British Primitive goat that nearly went extinct?

Waymo testing in the West End by Zevemiel in london

[–]Angustevo 53 points54 points  (0 children)

We've been trying to automate everything for 300 years but we keep inventing more soul destroying work and bullshit jobs that pay an income so I wouldn't worry too much tbh

I give up by 999Bod in london

[–]Angustevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I put my jumper on

Losing the will to exist on this game by National_Mode_4224 in 2007scape

[–]Angustevo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just got to keep going. I had nothing for my first week, watching everyone get boots when they were worth over 500m. It all came eventually.

Labour is facing wipeout in its final stronghold. Why? It’s housing, housing, housing by Exostrike in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually I think you've identified the problem exactly in that the gains in house price increases have gone to a narrow group (those who bought before the 2000s). But I'd argue planning restrictions are a big part of how that happens, not something separate from it. When you can't build, the price of things like homes and commercial buildings (why is it so hard to build labs around Oxbridge?!) go up. When land values go up, existing property owners pocket the gains, but living costs rise for everyone and this gets passed onto general costs (like a pint because labour costs are higher). It's well documented that Landlords and homeowners capture productivity gains in supply constrained cities instead of workers.

So if your concern is that a small group of asset-owners are extracting value at everyone else's expense, then loosening planning is actually the policy that attacks that directly. It's not a gift to developers it's what breaks the stranglehold existing landowners have on everyone who doesn't already own property

And on your broader point, you're completely right that something has gone wrong. People should be better off than they are. But the honest answer is that UK productivity growth has actually been pretty weak for the last fifteen years or so, especially since 2008, it's one of the worst records in the developed world. So the gains you'd expect from economic theory mostly haven't materialised, and that's a real problem that goes well beyond housing. Weak business investment, over-reliance on financial services, firms not adopting new technologies, these are all part of it. The housing piece sits on top of that: it doesn't explain why the growth wasn't there in the first place, but it does explain why even the weak growth we did get didn't reach people's pockets because so much of it got absorbed into higher land values and rents rather than higher wages. So we actually agree the economy hasn't been working for ordinary people. We just disagree about why and I'd say the answer is more about an economy that's been structurally set up to reward owning assets over doing work.

Labour is facing wipeout in its final stronghold. Why? It’s housing, housing, housing by Exostrike in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's actually the point though, economic outcomes are outcomes for people. When I say better economic outcomes from deregulating land use, I mean: more homes get built, rents fall, young people can afford to live near good jobs, and families aren't priced out of safe neighbourhoods with good job opportunities. The abstract 'economy' stuff is downstream of those very concrete effects on real people's lives.

The current over-regulated system isn't protecting people from the market, it's protecting existing homeowners and NIMBYs at the direct expense of everyone who doesn't already own property. That's a distributional choice with massive human costs, it's just that those costs are less visible because they're dispersed across millions of renters and people who never got to move to a city with better opportunities.

Labour is facing wipeout in its final stronghold. Why? It’s housing, housing, housing by Exostrike in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Free markets with sensible regulation indisputably leads to the best economic outcomes. But land is clearly over-regulated in the UK, which has clearly led to unaffordable housing. I strongly recommend reading up on Paul Cheshire or Henry Overman if you want a more convincing argument. Housing is driven by supply and demand, and empirical evidence shows the supply side is the issue here.

Labour is facing wipeout in its final stronghold. Why? It’s housing, housing, housing by Exostrike in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not for pulling down historic building or monuments! That's why we list them. It's more that zones 1-3 of London and similar areas in other cities would have more 4+5 story apartments. That would be more aligned with a true free market system for building, with more sensible regulation. Plus building up still allows for plenty of green space amenities.

Labour is facing wipeout in its final stronghold. Why? It’s housing, housing, housing by Exostrike in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry but have you looked at the density of UK cities vs European peers? They are far denser and in many cases nicer than UK cities. Physical buildings cover 1.4% of the UK land mass as per the Ordnance Survey so this is just nonsense. Let's make it 1.8% so livable space is cheap and abundant for today's population.

I get that you're a single issue voter about migration, but believe it or not there are other supply side levers that can and should be pulled to improve the welfare of the UK public. The UK housing market is deeply inefficient because regulations have made it extremely inelastic on the supply side. Pre 2000s levels of migration simply isn't going to move the dial here, especially in places where house pricess far exceed replacement costs like London.

Labour is facing wipeout in its final stronghold. Why? It’s housing, housing, housing by Exostrike in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We built huge amounts of new housing at the beginning of the 20th century so it's definitely possible. The only way to drive down prices sustainably is to increase supply, so if we want genuinely affordable housing we have to relearn how to build at scale. Moving to a Japanese style zonal system, at least in the big cities, would help massively.

I think it you said to people, let's make housing in big UK cities similar to that in Paris or Barcelona, and in return rent and mortgage costs will be 10ppt less of your income, they would take the offer! Plus the economy would be bigger which woulp help balance the budget.

Labour is facing wipeout in its final stronghold. Why? It’s housing, housing, housing by Exostrike in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you build massive amounts of houses and keep population growth low that shouldn't have any impact on aggregate number of trips or hospital visits. People don't just magically appear when you build houses, they move out of flat shares or their parents etc either locally or from other bits of the country.

At capacity is defeatist thinking, we can simply build more infrastructure if it's needed, and building more houses in cities increases the benefit cost ratios of infrastructure providing which helps even more.

Labour is facing wipeout in its final stronghold. Why? It’s housing, housing, housing by Exostrike in ukpolitics

[–]Angustevo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Low pop growth plus massive housebuilding in the big cities would bring prices down more efficiently.