• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Population control? That maths isn't math'ing; you'd need huge population reduction.

AI will be utilised to replace some things, other industries will spring up, and Govts will stop AI going too far, so UBI won't occur either.

Ironically, UBI would be good - capitalism is so fudged with price inflation outstriping income and £ being stockpiled by the rich. UBI would have to include utilities covered, because you can't remove the opportunity to change earnings without covering basic human needs, else risk civil unrest.
UBI would also change the nature and value of money, making the stockpiled money worthless in practice. Yes, they could still buy more things, but the race for more £ disappears, so does the power of money.
 
thfcsteff said:
Go on. I'll bite...
Click to expand...
Well its essentially a mass benefit so in the current global system, you would need to raise the money via taxation or borrowing or issue it via the central bank, which would risk severe inflation brought about by a devaluation of the currency globally. So you would need every single major market economy to agree to fundamentally change "the syatem" and i just do not see that happening....
 
monkeybarry said:
Population control? That maths isn't math'ing; you'd need huge population reduction.

AI will be utilised to replace some things, other industries will spring up, and Govts will stop AI going too far, so UBI won't occur either.

Ironically, UBI would be good - capitalism is so fudged with price inflation outstriping income and £ being stockpiled by the rich. UBI would have to include utilities covered, because you can't remove the opportunity to change earnings without covering basic human needs, else risk civil unrest.
UBI would also change the nature and value of money, making the stockpiled money worthless in practice. Yes, they could still buy more things, but the race for more £ disappears, so does the power of money.
Click to expand...
Well without population control the math isn't mathing. I mean just for example the population of the UK is increasing by about 500k-800k a year. Whereas 200k-250k new homes are built every year. This is the primary driver of unaffordable housing. It is basic supply and demand/competition.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Well without population control the math isn't mathing. I mean just for example the population of the UK is increasing by about 500k-800k a year. Whereas 200k-250k new homes are built every year. This is the primary driver of unaffordable housing. It is basic supply and demand/competition.
Click to expand...

That is because Britain is building social housing at an alarmingly low rate compared to the past. Add the housing market being swamped by a select group of property speculators, and you have a housing crisis (there's obviously more detail but that's a thumbnail). I would usually now go on about what Thatcher did to bed in the housing crisis we have, but I'll spare you (for now)...
 
thfcsteff said:
That is because Britain is building social housing at an alarmingly low rate compared to the past. Add the housing market being swamped by a select group of property speculators, and you have a housing crisis (there's obviously more detail but that's a thumbnail). I would usually now go on about what Thatcher did to bed in the housing crisis we have, but I'll spare you (for now)...
Click to expand...
I mean, regardless of policy, there simply is not enough resource to build homes at the rate required. Resource is both people (planners, surveyors, inspectors, arcitects, site managers, brick layers, carpenters, fabricators, electricians, plumbers, roofers, glazers etc) and materials (stone, slate, brick, timber and whatever else under the sun).

There is also limited good ground available to build houses or buildings on. Just down the road from me there is a huge area of land that we had notice that they were surveying for house building. Ground was deemed too soft, water-logged and unstable.

To build a house with non-specialist foundations you basically need solid bedrock to be just a metre or two below ground, devoid of major roots within a 5 metre radius and all manner of other suitability criteria.

Then you get into infrastructure. The sewer system, school system, health system can't cope with the number of houses being built NOW, let alone what is required to sustain current population growth.

True story that happened to a friend of mine: his stop rooster exploded and his house was flooded 5 years ago. The same happened to 50 odd properties in his area. The reason being was that a new housing estate of 500 houses had been built connected to the same water main and when they increased the water pressure to supply those houses it surpassed the pressure rating on the roosters of existing houses causing mass explosions.

They were in a hotel for a year.

The answer isn't "we just need more of everything". The answer is we need less humans.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
I mean, regardless of policy, there simply is not enough resource to build homes at the rate required. Resource is both people (planners, surveyors, inspectors, arcitects, site managers, brick layers, carpenters, fabricators, electricians, plumbers, roofers, glazers etc) and materials (stone, slate, brick, timber and whatever else under the sun).

There is also limited good ground available to build houses or buildings on. Just down the road from me there is a huge area of land that we had notice that they were surveying for house building. Ground was deemed too soft, water-logged and unstable.

To build a house with non-specialist foundations you basically need solid bedrock to be just a metre or two below ground, devoid of major roots within a 5 metre radius and all manner of other suitability criteria.

Then you get into infrastructure. The sewer system, school system, health system can't cope with the number of houses being built NOW, let alone what is required to sustain current population growth.

True story that happened to a friend of mine: his stop rooster exploded and his house was flooded 5 years ago. The same happened to 50 odd properties in his area. The reason being was that a new housing estate of 500 houses had been built connected to the same water main and when they increased the water pressure to supply those houses it surpassed the pressure rating on the roosters of existing houses causing mass explosions.

They were in a hotel for a year.

The answer isn't "we just need more of everything". The answer is we need less humans.
Click to expand...

You are only talking about the 7% of the landmass of the UK that everyone is squeezed into though. The other 93% is private aristocratic estates that no-one is able to access.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
I mean, regardless of policy, there simply is not enough resource to build homes at the rate required. Resource is both people (planners, surveyors, inspectors, arcitects, site managers, brick layers, carpenters, fabricators, electricians, plumbers, roofers, glazers etc) and materials (stone, slate, brick, timber and whatever else under the sun).

There is also limited good ground available to build houses or buildings on. Just down the road from me there is a huge area of land that we had notice that they were surveying for house building. Ground was deemed too soft, water-logged and unstable.

To build a house with non-specialist foundations you basically need solid bedrock to be just a metre or two below ground, devoid of major roots within a 5 metre radius and all manner of other suitability criteria.

Then you get into infrastructure. The sewer system, school system, health system can't cope with the number of houses being built NOW, let alone what is required to sustain current population growth.

True story that happened to a friend of mine: his stop rooster exploded and his house was flooded 5 years ago. The same happened to 50 odd properties in his area. The reason being was that a new housing estate of 500 houses had been built connected to the same water main and when they increased the water pressure to supply those houses it surpassed the pressure rating on the roosters of existing houses causing mass explosions.

They were in a hotel for a year.

The answer isn't "we just need more of everything". The answer is we need less humans.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with your very specific set of perspectives.
There is also no single answer.
 
The UK being full is the funniest lie. The UK has 78% of its preproties built before the 80s. All that Tory rule did that. And the very people who probably voted for them through thst period want to blame brown people for housing issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back