Foreign investors who buy properties in the UK as an investment, but will never live in them. Brits now have to compete with the entire world to outbid them when bidding on a property.
sara meachel but that wouldn’t solve anything - it needs to be banned or there needs to be a rule that you have to live in the UK for at least half the year or something in order to buy a property. Denmark has a similar rule, you have to have lived there for 5 years in order to buy and you can only own one home and a summer home as a private person - if you want more then you have to set up a business and then be a professional landlord.
The problem is caused by the way real estate is taxed. Housing should be exempt from taxation altogether. Only the value of land should be subject to taxation. This would bring down prices and make constructing housing much less expensive. Economists know this, but politicians are slow to grasp how markets react to taxation.
@@nthperson if you tax less, then more people will buy to let and increase the prices even more. First house should be tax free, ok, but the next houses one owns should be exponentially higher taxes, prohibitive taxes I mean. Owning multiple homes to sublet is inhumane, it’s destroying young people
So unless you are a rich or get a mortgage for the rest of your life you will be forced to pay ridiculous rents and not be able to save enough money to buy a house ..perfect
@Zac M - do a bit of research and you'll find that Germany's economy is waaaaaay stronger than the UK's. Or just continue to post nonsense. Your choice.
@@tonykollar6870 Banks can borrow a certain amount of money from the central banks at low interest rates, then they lend it out to the market at much higher interest rates. The difference is their profit. So when central banks lend out huge sums as they have been doing to try to prop up the economy, they are essentially giving the banks a license to create huge profits out of thin air.
@@krisjill5918 Thanks for mentioning that. To expand on why: Councils were barred from using the proceeds to build more housing and it was more often better quality homes which were sold leaving councils with often delapidated properties to administer (or ultimately demolish). So council house sales, although obviously increasing homeownership, actually depleted overall housing stock. Also the houses were often sold off at a discount to long term tenants so appreciated greatly on resale.
Right. Margaret Thatcher rightfully believed that a society of property owners are citizens who feel they have a stake in what is happening. The problem was that she did not understand the economic and societal differences between owning a house (a depreciating asset) and owning land (an asset that gets its value because of public spending on infrastructure, such as public transit systems, hospitals and schools).
I’m a Yank . . . and agree that low interest rates are probably the single biggest cause. Additionally, here in the States, I’m observed that builders just build bigger homes. It’s like restaurants serving bigger portions which thereby justifies a higher price. When I was a kid growing up in the 1970s, we had a nice middle-class house that was about 1,500 square feet. It was three bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, breakfast area, formal dining room, utility room, the large “den” where we watched TV and spent most of our time, and the formal living room. Looking back, maybe each of the rooms - except the den! - was relatively small. But it seemed just fine to us. There’s no way you could buy a new home like this today. It simply is not available.
My mum bought her first house age 20 for 59,000 that same house 30 years later is now worth 390,000 and is currently owned by a man charging 800pcm PER ROOM the younger generation bar the millionaires are going to be stuck renting to the people who bought the properties cheap 20 years ago
That might help, but what is needed is for government to provide funds to construct permanently affordable housing. Land could be assembled into community land trusts in which households would own the house but not the land. Land would be subject to a lease structure. There are other ways, such as imposing resale restrictions on properties so they must be sold to income-eligible buyers.
@@qvindicator A very real moral question is whether any of us has a legitimate right to monopolize any part of the planet. When government issues a deed to a parcel of land, what is conveyed is not actually ownership but a bundle of rights, but rights that are conditional. One of the conditions ought to be the payment to the community of the full potential rental value thereof. Henry George (and others) have argued that once this payment is made, ones financial obligation to the community or society has been fulfilled.
A land value tax would fix the problem. Interest rates being low does make debt cheaper, but raising them hits the entire economy. LVT targets land speculation and it's price appreciation directly, allowing for low borrowing costs for productive investment to continue.
LVT is justice that's why the land owning mafia that run this damp island would happily have a civil war before ever allowing it. Not that that's anywhere near real the status quo has never been less threatened
@@235deer Well, all communities in the U.S. do tax land values, but the effective rate of taxation is too low to keep speculators from buying and holding land for years or decades. Only one state, Pennsylvania, has passed legislation that allows at least some local governments to move in the direction of LVT (i.e., land value taxation) by gradually lowering the rate imposed on the value of buildings while increasing the rate imposed on the assessed value of land parcels.
Inflation was highest in the 70s and has hovered around 2% since the 90s, by no means does inflation even begin to explain the housing price boom. If you adjust for inflation, housing prices are still insanely high, hence why the income to house price ratio used to be much better
Japan has had super low interest rates for a long time and house prices didn't go crazy. They have very low immigration and a stagnant/slightly falling/sustainable population though.
Although Japan also has less of a wealth gap and regional inequality, so I believe? Internal migration from depressed regions is a factor (rarely mentioned). You can get cheap houses in the UK or US if you don't mind staying in or moving to small ex-industrial towns but there's no work and they're often literally depressing.
Back in 1989 the aggregate value of the land of Japan was reported to be 3 times that of the entire United States. This imposed huge stresses on the Japanese economy and the Japanese people. Japan's property markets crashed and Japan experienced a crash from which they have not yet fully recovered. The major problem was that Japan had no annual tax on land; thus, a great deal of land within and surrounding Japanese cities was under-developed.
House prices have pretty much followed the increase in the money supply since the 1970s. When you have so much liquidity sloshing around, it has to go somewhere.
It's the other way around, the money supply is a function of bank lending and most lending is done as mortgages, so the increase in mortgage debt increases the money supply, but all that debt which came from nowhere has to be paid off.
Investors with deep pockets look for returns. Speculating in real estate is one of the assets that returns high yields. But, when speculators jump into a market supply drops and prices climb. When investors speculate in land, they can hold land idle for years or decades because vacant land is generally not re-assessed even when title changes hands.
Very simple answer: Loans Loans make everything expensive toppling supply-demand of the market. As everyone could take a loan now and buy a house. High demand raises the prices
Totally missed the part about flipping houses for profit. They spend more time being sold than being lived in. Each sale, the price goes up, each owner does the same, just so they don't have to pay the mortgage forever, passing it to the next sucker down the ladder. It's like a massive Ponzi scheme. It will have to crash because it's simply unsustainable.
I am disabled and unemploayble. Also 40 years old. I am personally looking for a motor home that will last me the next 30 years of my life, assuming I live that long. There is no way I could ever afford my own brick and mortar home.... Unless its for £20k. HAH!
What is the other choice then? Not being sarcastic, genuinely want to know. I can’t afford the rent or property prices here in the south east of England
What is the other choice? Buy land? Then the government will prevent you from getting planning permission. Tiny homes? Again, planning permission, communities have been asking for tiny home zones for years and councils still won't listen. Living in a tent in the woods? Not allowed. Renting? Then you're paying off someone else's insanely high mortgage.
It because 10-15% of the population own 75-80% of the real estate. Same problem in US and same problem here in Australia Covid didn't help stunting material supply housing development 😕
75-85% of the British population do not rent…. It’s somewhere around 50-50 at the moment (tipping from where it was a majority living in a owned house) heck a third own outright (ie without mortgage)
In order for banks to make (sell to people) more money, they need more product. More houses (product) for more money => more people with life-time loans => more guaranteed money for the banks. A smart minority lives off selling people their basic needs. As a blown-out-of-proportion concept as well as a product.
There are two reasons: Preadotory capitalism and greed. Simple. Just get rid of money and price speculation will be a thing of the past along with the BS inflation.
Yes and no. Real estate agents also need markets with frequent transactions. The more expensive properties become, the fewer transactions occur. This is particularly the case when mortgage loan investors require higher cash down payments and tighten creditworthiness criteria.
When the governments everywhere is basically asking you to find somebody to afford a house. But it goes to show yha people just don't become poor and live on the streets. Poor people who lives on the streets will tell you they used to have a nice house but as years goes by things just got to expensive for a single person to own a home. Like back then you could actually afford a apartment or a small home by your sefl now you need strangers to room with you to make the rent affordable.
Didn't mention externalities. Take example. An individual who maintains an attractive house may confer benefits to neighbors in the form of increased market values for their properties, and likewise each neighbor follow suit.
Since it's all relative, it's both depending on which you decide is your reference. I'd also argue that you're wrong since house price inflation has been about 1% above CPI on average over the past 10 years.
That's the consequences of false economic growth. In Europe, we have been in a decreasing time regarding our energy consumption since 2007. With a simple look, GDP is function of energy use. But we still have economic growth because of artefact countings. That's why houses are more expensive. Sorry for my poor English, but I suggest you to watch Jean Marc Jancovici to understand the whole link between energy and GDP
yes because most people organization their personal finances around a budget, so they spend an approximately fixed amount of dollars or pounds on housing. That fixed number buys you "more" house if the interest rates are lower.... and complementary to that, if you have a fixed budget and can "afford more" on a repayment, then you're willing to bid up prices. This coupled with a lack of capital contrasted financial institution means there is more credit in the system and the "cost of production" for a bank is also lower..... allowing them to lend more. The cycle continues and local residents are able to keep pace with outside buyers, the only question is for how long.
Falling interest rates means potential homebuyers can carry more mortgage debt. Sellers know this and increase asking prices. Landowners know this and increase they asking prices for developable land, and this cost is passed on by builders to the homebuyers.
I'd like to see what proportion of average lifetime earnings was spent on an average house in the 90's compared to today. Given that we all have to live somewhere it effectively amounts to a huge reduction in wages over the last 30 years. Ever increasing house prices make the majority of people poorer, not richer.
Exactly correct. And, as existing property owners age and cash out, the next generation of buyers is carrying far higher levels of debt. Qualifying for a mortgage loan generally requires the income of two adults employed full time. So, if a recession occurs and even one of the household incomes falls, there will be even more defaults and foreclosures than occurred in 2008-2010.
Anywhere population density is high and jobs are plentiful will have to deal with high land prices, unless something close to the full potential rental value of locations is captured via the property tax.
People apparently love an excuse to blame foreigners for our problems, whether immigrant workers or speculative investors but a major factor rarely mentioned is internal migration. Britons have congregated in prosperous cities because obviously that's where the jobs are. There is surplus housing stock in many ex industrial towns (what wasn't flattened by John Prescott's dim-witted 'pathfinder' scheme). If we finally deal with regional inequality and bring real investment back to these places, there will be less pressure on housing costs in the other places where we all know it's become a crisis. We also need to recalibrate what we prioritise for investment: capital spending on people and plant rather than pumping up asset appreciation.
Interesting video. Time proved that rising interest rates don’t make house prices lower. High inflation and big demand keep prices high. That’s a huge problem for millennials. It is really challenging to buy a house in 2023.
How can ultra low interest rates cause house prices to keep rising? Low interest rates should make houses easier to buy, not more, as the interest on the mortgage is lower.
US homes are so expensive because the FHFA sets the Conforming Loan limit so high, period. 70% of all loans are purchased by Fannie and Freddie, and those organizations are not allowed to purchase home loans above those limits. Had FHFA frozen Conforming Loan limits at 2019 levels, every zip code in the United States would have affordable home prices for most residents. Any other explanation for the high home prices is, quite frankly, BS.
This video says that there's no housing shortage and that the demand exceeding the supply isn't a factor in rising house prices, whilst I can view lots of articles on The Guardian website that say that there is a housing shortage.
A really interesting point I hadn’t seen, thank you. I still think it’s clear that there isn’t enough supply. If more houses were built in the right areas, rents would fall and private letting would become less viable.
And, not enough housing units are built because land is so expensive. And, land is so expensive because land is grossly undertaxed and can be held off the market for years or decades.
If the government says it's illegal to live off of public land for free near where we're legally required to work then our government should help regulate this inflation of housing prices to assure housing costs are reasonable.
Zero or negative interest force the prices higher creating massive inflation in housing. Now the average worker is priced out of a home periond. But there is a flip side to this too. Dividends and stock market increases have created money out of thin air. I used a 5x upswing in a postion to put down on a house, Now both my house and new stock position are up huge again. This time the whole loan will be gone. Danger is the higher you go and fail the worse the fall. People are buying house with money created in valuations some where else, that is to me the reason housing is so high. Pay and earning do not pay on the housing today, its money in another investment driving the houses even higher.
Why not tax "primary residences" (ie. our homes) at the current level, and all others (ie. second homes & buy-to-let businesses) at a new REALLY HIGH level?
It is not about interest rate. More about lending more money. Government should increase mortgage rate for buy to let scheme houses and second houses substantialy. Even government can get much more higher taxes for second houses. Low mortgage rate on main houses if there is enough supply does not increase the price because the demand is rational.
Same thing in most western markets. As interest rates cheapen every gets FOMO and wants to buy now before missing out. Soon it becomes a free for all and you're playing musical chairs with 8 chairs and 20 people.
it all seems like a single man will have to work for his house until the end of his time, live for a few years there and die. it's really hard as a young and single man to prosper.
SIMPLE SOLUTION:Buy CHEAPER HOUSING in CONSERVATIVE STATES for like over $100,000 to $350,000 alongside with cheaper prices for everything,high wages,and higher living standards!"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
Buy to live in or as an investment? If it's the latter, you might do OK for yourself but you're just kicking the can down the street in terms of solving the problem. A nation of renters all sharing houses well into adulthood and unable to raise families doesn't sound much like freedom to me.
Well, the only houses being built in bulk are chunks of investment for assholes. Luxury, badly built and with no local or community services like shops, doctors or parks.
Another thing people don't talk about which (I think) would be a factor is that women have entered the workforce. Surging supply of labour would mean that labour is less valuable. Even though there is more production, where a few generations ago one man required enough compensation to support his entire family... now he only needs enough compensation to support half of his family's costs - his wife earns the other half. What that means is that increased labour supply pushes down incomes, so families are forced into two parent working arrangements, and young people who aren't "teamed up" are priced out of the market.
Real estate investors only serve themselves. Up and coming lower class would be home buyers have to compete against the upper middle and upper classes for these homes. It makes me sick. We act like we are a mature species but really we are acting like children grabbing everything we can.
There will be a huge mentality shift in the coming years, with millennials and gen Z feeling much more content to rent a nicer place than they could afford to own and put the bulk of their capital in investment funds / buying stable stocks such as Amazon and Google for much bigger returns than the housing market could provide. Once this shift happens (3-5 years seems to be the current 'zeitgeist cycle') house prices will naturally take a hit as the ‘value’ owning a home will decrease. This will then put pressure on boomers and Gen X to sell their homes in order to preserve any capital appreciation they had accumulated during the boom years, causing prices to decline further. JMHO. The economic impact from the pandemic will only serve to make millennials and gen Z even more eager to maximise the returns on their savings. Cryptocurrencies, investment funds and stocks are the future for wealth appreciation - not housing.
I'm in the U.S.A. Many rent here because they don't wan't the responsibility and cost associated with maintaining the property. Those costs can be substantial and have in many cases risen faster than incomes. Imagine buying a home and then not being able to afford the upkeep. Home ownership usually requires the buyer to buy tools and equipment, and become somewhat knowledgeable about the mechanical workings of the home or appliances, etc. Renting also gives the renter the opportunity to live in a better place than they could otherwise afford by purchase. They often avoid transaction costs associated with buying and selling property. And no need to have prospective buyers walking through your home. When compared to buyers, renters usually have fewer personal belongings, so moving out is much easier. Renting seems more expensive, but not always, and not by as much as those who profit by selling homes would have us believe.
Without systemic changes in law and taxation this will not improve. Only a high tax on the rental value of land has the potential to bring down land costs so housing can be built that people can afford.
This video is way way off the mark. One can safely ignore all of these factors to explain a rise in house prices - Fractional Reserve Banking driving inflation of house prices used for mortgage collateral.
Two issues unaddressed. Firstly peoples spending preferences for nice location has changed vastly over the years. Reflected by global demand for property in London/SE (the main driver of HP inflation). Secondly, the amount of housing consumed by owner occupiers has increased. Over the past two decades the number of owner occupiers with one or more empty bedroom has doubled. This has resulted in owners occupiers consuming an extra 12 million bedrooms compared to those that rent in Eng/Wales, pro rata. Of course there are housing issues. The question is, what is to be done about them? Instead of embarking on a costly house building exercise, we should first ask whether other options would be more effective and reduce costs instead of adding to them? For example. A 100% tax on the rental value of land reduces its selling price to zero. The mechanism by which it does so is income re-distribution, typically to those that find housing unaffordable now. That results in housing being maximally affordable for that group, in a way no amount of house building can. Such a tax also levels the playing field between tenures. That allows for the market to rationalise existing stock, negating the need to wastefully numbers/type currently projected. Such a tax allows for the reduction/elimination of taxes on beneficial activities, growing the economy at a time we are in most need of it.
People like to live in England with all those football hooligans, and drug heads😂 You are guaranteed to be assaulted in the street at night in England. Have fun in the freezing cold weather there also. Have fun with those rip off house prices also. So have fun in the wind and rain in England with all these things😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Foreign investors who buy properties in the UK as an investment, but will never live in them. Brits now have to compete with the entire world to outbid them when bidding on a property.
So true !
That’s why selling prices for foreign investors should be higher than for the citizens
sara meachel but that wouldn’t solve anything - it needs to be banned or there needs to be a rule that you have to live in the UK for at least half the year or something in order to buy a property. Denmark has a similar rule, you have to have lived there for 5 years in order to buy and you can only own one home and a summer home as a private person - if you want more then you have to set up a business and then be a professional landlord.
And now Brexit is about to happen...
Same in Portugal.
The world will eventually be a place for the ultra rich.
We can't even afford a house where we grew up anymore. This system isn't fair.
Well American houses are cheaper than all other developed nations.
The problem is caused by the way real estate is taxed. Housing should be exempt from taxation altogether. Only the value of land should be subject to taxation. This would bring down prices and make constructing housing much less expensive. Economists know this, but politicians are slow to grasp how markets react to taxation.
It was always designed to be *UNFAIR*
Yet I bet you still want more migration.
@@nthperson if you tax less, then more people will buy to let and increase the prices even more. First house should be tax free, ok, but the next houses one owns should be exponentially higher taxes, prohibitive taxes I mean. Owning multiple homes to sublet is inhumane, it’s destroying young people
So unless you are a rich or get a mortgage for the rest of your life you will be forced to pay ridiculous rents and not be able to save enough money to buy a house ..perfect
@Zac M - do a bit of research and you'll find that Germany's economy is waaaaaay stronger than the UK's. Or just continue to post nonsense. Your choice.
@@NeverRubARhubarb you wouldn't get it
@@soyboyhunter2022 they never do
@@NeverRubARhubarb the UK? Do you mean that little island between us and Americans?
@Zac M
Da liegst du falsch, mein Lieber
Notice the massive gap between the red line and the white line in the graph of interest rates? That is the banks' profit margin...
Wow thank you for pointing it out !
Not so banks can and do black their interest rate above the base lending rate also they make money on trading the mortgage as an asset or bond
Bank always wins :(
I don't understand this
@@tonykollar6870
Banks can borrow a certain amount of money from the central banks at low interest rates, then they lend it out to the market at much higher interest rates. The difference is their profit.
So when central banks lend out huge sums as they have been doing to try to prop up the economy, they are essentially giving the banks a license to create huge profits out of thin air.
I'm surprised the demise of good quality council housing, that was shamefully sold off cheaply due to 'Right to Buy' never got a mention.
Low hanging fruit?
Because this provided extra supply to the property market, which would have pushed prices down, not up.
@@A_Red_December In theory. In practice, this proved a fallacy.
@@krisjill5918 Thanks for mentioning that. To expand on why: Councils were barred from using the proceeds to build more housing and it was more often better quality homes which were sold leaving councils with often delapidated properties to administer (or ultimately demolish). So council house sales, although obviously increasing homeownership, actually depleted overall housing stock. Also the houses were often sold off at a discount to long term tenants so appreciated greatly on resale.
Right. Margaret Thatcher rightfully believed that a society of property owners are citizens who feel they have a stake in what is happening. The problem was that she did not understand the economic and societal differences between owning a house (a depreciating asset) and owning land (an asset that gets its value because of public spending on infrastructure, such as public transit systems, hospitals and schools).
Astounding video. Props to the crew behind this one. I'd love to see more from the team.
I’m a Yank . . . and agree that low interest rates are probably the single biggest cause.
Additionally, here in the States, I’m observed that builders just build bigger homes. It’s like restaurants serving bigger portions which thereby justifies a higher price.
When I was a kid growing up in the 1970s, we had a nice middle-class house that was about 1,500 square feet. It was three bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, breakfast area, formal dining room, utility room, the large “den” where we watched TV and spent most of our time, and the formal living room. Looking back, maybe each of the rooms - except the den! - was relatively small. But it seemed just fine to us.
There’s no way you could buy a new home like this today. It simply is not available.
That's false. Houses in the USA are cheaper than most developed nations. If you leave the gigantic cities you can afford a house.
My mum bought her first house age 20 for 59,000 that same house 30 years later is now worth 390,000 and is currently owned by a man charging 800pcm PER ROOM the younger generation bar the millionaires are going to be stuck renting to the people who bought the properties cheap 20 years ago
Right my grandma had a three bedroom house she sold it for like 20,000 in the 80’s and it’s obviously worth a lot more now
until... POP goes the housing bubble.
With the amount by which the money supply has been increased, I highly doubt it's going to burst anytime soon
British economics writer Fred Harrison provides the analysis to forecast a property market crash in 2026 or earlier.
Limit foreign investors and limit buy to let
That might help, but what is needed is for government to provide funds to construct permanently affordable housing. Land could be assembled into community land trusts in which households would own the house but not the land. Land would be subject to a lease structure. There are other ways, such as imposing resale restrictions on properties so they must be sold to income-eligible buyers.
@@nthperson you should also be able to own the land under your house
@@qvindicator A very real moral question is whether any of us has a legitimate right to monopolize any part of the planet. When government issues a deed to a parcel of land, what is conveyed is not actually ownership but a bundle of rights, but rights that are conditional. One of the conditions ought to be the payment to the community of the full potential rental value thereof. Henry George (and others) have argued that once this payment is made, ones financial obligation to the community or society has been fulfilled.
A land value tax would fix the problem.
Interest rates being low does make debt cheaper, but raising them hits the entire economy. LVT targets land speculation and it's price appreciation directly, allowing for low borrowing costs for productive investment to continue.
The one thing the us did right
LVT is justice that's why the land owning mafia that run this damp island would happily have a civil war before ever allowing it. Not that that's anywhere near real the status quo has never been less threatened
much higher mortgage rate and tax for second houses.
@@235deer Well, all communities in the U.S. do tax land values, but the effective rate of taxation is too low to keep speculators from buying and holding land for years or decades. Only one state, Pennsylvania, has passed legislation that allows at least some local governments to move in the direction of LVT (i.e., land value taxation) by gradually lowering the rate imposed on the value of buildings while increasing the rate imposed on the assessed value of land parcels.
Don't get a mortgage and don't start a family, both are risky financial endeavours. Live as cheaply as possible and invest wisely.
You can buy a house for what they want for rent! But you have to pay taxes and insurance on a house!
Hoping more such content from Guardian!
Inflation is the elephant in the room...
The inflation in house prices has been way higher than inflation of the GBP.
Most credit issued by Bank of England goes to mortgages
Inflation was highest in the 70s and has hovered around 2% since the 90s, by no means does inflation even begin to explain the housing price boom. If you adjust for inflation, housing prices are still insanely high, hence why the income to house price ratio used to be much better
Japan has had super low interest rates for a long time and house prices didn't go crazy. They have very low immigration and a stagnant/slightly falling/sustainable population though.
Ageing rapidly and it’s a problem
Although Japan also has less of a wealth gap and regional inequality, so I believe? Internal migration from depressed regions is a factor (rarely mentioned). You can get cheap houses in the UK or US if you don't mind staying in or moving to small ex-industrial towns but there's no work and they're often literally depressing.
@@raoulmontefiore4803 exactly you skilled labour or be self employed or be willing to commute to earn a decent wage.
Back in 1989 the aggregate value of the land of Japan was reported to be 3 times that of the entire United States. This imposed huge stresses on the Japanese economy and the Japanese people. Japan's property markets crashed and Japan experienced a crash from which they have not yet fully recovered. The major problem was that Japan had no annual tax on land; thus, a great deal of land within and surrounding Japanese cities was under-developed.
House prices have pretty much followed the increase in the money supply since the 1970s. When you have so much liquidity sloshing around, it has to go somewhere.
It's the other way around, the money supply is a function of bank lending and most lending is done as mortgages, so the increase in mortgage debt increases the money supply, but all that debt which came from nowhere has to be paid off.
Investors with deep pockets look for returns. Speculating in real estate is one of the assets that returns high yields. But, when speculators jump into a market supply drops and prices climb. When investors speculate in land, they can hold land idle for years or decades because vacant land is generally not re-assessed even when title changes hands.
Very simple answer: Loans
Loans make everything expensive toppling supply-demand of the market.
As everyone could take a loan now and buy a house.
High demand raises the prices
This is the REAL pandemic
Totally missed the part about flipping houses for profit.
They spend more time being sold than being lived in.
Each sale, the price goes up, each owner does the same, just so they don't have to pay the mortgage forever, passing it to the next sucker down the ladder.
It's like a massive Ponzi scheme.
It will have to crash because it's simply unsustainable.
Buying a house puts average person in debt half their life; prices are high for two reasons: 1) you accept it; and 2) you believe in no other choice
I am disabled and unemploayble. Also 40 years old. I am personally looking for a motor home that will last me the next 30 years of my life, assuming I live that long. There is no way I could ever afford my own brick and mortar home.... Unless its for £20k. HAH!
What is the other choice then? Not being sarcastic, genuinely want to know. I can’t afford the rent or property prices here in the south east of England
Wait so if people didn’t get into long term debt and say for example 10 year debt , would that solve any issues?
What is the other choice? Buy land? Then the government will prevent you from getting planning permission. Tiny homes? Again, planning permission, communities have been asking for tiny home zones for years and councils still won't listen. Living in a tent in the woods? Not allowed. Renting? Then you're paying off someone else's insanely high mortgage.
@@Valyssi the solution is to simply not exist in the first place 😆
It because 10-15% of the population own 75-80% of the real estate. Same problem in US and same problem here in Australia Covid didn't help stunting material supply housing development 😕
75-85% of the British population do not rent…. It’s somewhere around 50-50 at the moment (tipping from where it was a majority living in a owned house) heck a third own outright (ie without mortgage)
In order for banks to make (sell to people) more money, they need more product. More houses (product) for more money => more people with life-time loans => more guaranteed money for the banks.
A smart minority lives off selling people their basic needs. As a blown-out-of-proportion concept as well as a product.
Greed
I love how the demise of social housing is completely ignored
There are two reasons: Preadotory capitalism and greed.
Simple. Just get rid of money and price speculation will be a thing of the past along with the BS inflation.
How will i buy blades for my guillotine?
Just get rid of money? Simple?!!! You have a great 18th birthday in 5 years' time.
@Aubrey what can you replace it with?
Real Estate agents work off commission, it's to their advantage the house be as expensive as absolutely possible!
Yes and no. Real estate agents also need markets with frequent transactions. The more expensive properties become, the fewer transactions occur. This is particularly the case when mortgage loan investors require higher cash down payments and tighten creditworthiness criteria.
Depressing. I just saw my savings account rate drop 90%!
Very good ! Keep following this the housing problem please
When the governments everywhere is basically asking you to find somebody to afford a house. But it goes to show yha people just don't become poor and live on the streets. Poor people who lives on the streets will tell you they used to have a nice house but as years goes by things just got to expensive for a single person to own a home. Like back then you could actually afford a apartment or a small home by your sefl now you need strangers to room with you to make the rent affordable.
I'm so glad I've just bought a motorhome.
Where do you park it, and how much do you pay for lease a parking spot?
Didn't mention externalities. Take example. An individual who maintains an attractive house may confer benefits to neighbors in the form of increased market values for their properties, and likewise each neighbor follow suit.
houses didnt get expensive, people just got poor
Since it's all relative, it's both depending on which you decide is your reference.
I'd also argue that you're wrong since house price inflation has been about 1% above CPI on average over the past 10 years.
Both are true.
That's the consequences of false economic growth. In Europe, we have been in a decreasing time regarding our energy consumption since 2007. With a simple look, GDP is function of energy use. But we still have economic growth because of artefact countings. That's why houses are more expensive. Sorry for my poor English, but I suggest you to watch Jean Marc Jancovici to understand the whole link between energy and GDP
So everyone outbidding each other due to low interest rates is a major cause for the increase in house prices?
yes because most people organization their personal finances around a budget, so they spend an approximately fixed amount of dollars or pounds on housing. That fixed number buys you "more" house if the interest rates are lower.... and complementary to that, if you have a fixed budget and can "afford more" on a repayment, then you're willing to bid up prices. This coupled with a lack of capital contrasted financial institution means there is more credit in the system and the "cost of production" for a bank is also lower..... allowing them to lend more. The cycle continues and local residents are able to keep pace with outside buyers, the only question is for how long.
Falling interest rates means potential homebuyers can carry more mortgage debt. Sellers know this and increase asking prices. Landowners know this and increase they asking prices for developable land, and this cost is passed on by builders to the homebuyers.
More videos like this please. 👍
Because the bigger the mortgage the bigger the profit (for Wall Street, not you).
Moral of the story, don't keep cash. If it's not making 2% a year your losing money.
Wait til the banks crash post US election and all the housing markets follow then see how dumb cash looks.
@@catsploitation After Brexit, both local currency liquid assets and illiquid assets may lose value.
@@Myria83 we are aware of this, thanks
I'd like to see what proportion of average lifetime earnings was spent on an average house in the 90's compared to today. Given that we all have to live somewhere it effectively amounts to a huge reduction in wages over the last 30 years. Ever increasing house prices make the majority of people poorer, not richer.
Exactly correct. And, as existing property owners age and cash out, the next generation of buyers is carrying far higher levels of debt. Qualifying for a mortgage loan generally requires the income of two adults employed full time. So, if a recession occurs and even one of the household incomes falls, there will be even more defaults and foreclosures than occurred in 2008-2010.
what if it's because big businesses are too close together, which drives up the pricing of surrounding land?
Anywhere population density is high and jobs are plentiful will have to deal with high land prices, unless something close to the full potential rental value of locations is captured via the property tax.
This doesn't stack up. Germany and Italy have also had low interest rates, but property in those countries is much, much cheaper than in the UK.
That's like comparing apples and oranges. It isn't just the interest rates.
@@NeverRubARhubarb Well the video doesn't explain why the comparison isn't valid/breaks down, so it is rather unsatisfactory.
People apparently love an excuse to blame foreigners for our problems, whether immigrant workers or speculative investors but a major factor rarely mentioned is internal migration. Britons have congregated in prosperous cities because obviously that's where the jobs are. There is surplus housing stock in many ex industrial towns (what wasn't flattened by John Prescott's dim-witted 'pathfinder' scheme). If we finally deal with regional inequality and bring real investment back to these places, there will be less pressure on housing costs in the other places where we all know it's become a crisis. We also need to recalibrate what we prioritise for investment: capital spending on people and plant rather than pumping up asset appreciation.
Regardless of how you want to spin it, 300,000+ immigrants per year is not a sustainable figure for a small and already densely populated country.
Capitalism.
Absolute joke. My mum got her house for £60,000 in 1991 and now it's insanity. I'm not moving out my mum is happy to have me
Interesting video. Time proved that rising interest rates don’t make house prices lower. High inflation and big demand keep prices high. That’s a huge problem for millennials. It is really challenging to buy a house in 2023.
How can ultra low interest rates cause house prices to keep rising? Low interest rates should make houses easier to buy, not more, as the interest on the mortgage is lower.
You didn't take economics, did you.
It does make houses easier to buy. But it makes so for everyone. So then, the law of supply-demand gets in.
US homes are so expensive because the FHFA sets the Conforming Loan limit so high, period. 70% of all loans are purchased by Fannie and Freddie, and those organizations are not allowed to purchase home loans above those limits. Had FHFA frozen Conforming Loan limits at 2019 levels, every zip code in the United States would have affordable home prices for most residents. Any other explanation for the high home prices is, quite frankly, BS.
Excellent video but it misses one factor: land ownership and land speculation
Right. Solution to land hoarding and land speculation is to publicly capture land rent via property taxation.
This video says that there's no housing shortage and that the demand exceeding the supply isn't a factor in rising house prices, whilst I can view lots of articles on The Guardian website that say that there is a housing shortage.
Search on the Labour Land Campaign and statements by Carol Wilcox. She explains the problem clearly and provides the solution.
A really interesting point I hadn’t seen, thank you. I still think it’s clear that there isn’t enough supply. If more houses were built in the right areas, rents would fall and private letting would become less viable.
And hundreds of thousand of people moving here hasn't played a part?
Houses are so expensive because not enough are built.
And, not enough housing units are built because land is so expensive. And, land is so expensive because land is grossly undertaxed and can be held off the market for years or decades.
@@nthperson exactly
The ever growing people who are property developers putting affordable houses to unaffordable
If the government says it's illegal to live off of public land for free near where we're legally required to work then our government should help regulate this inflation of housing prices to assure housing costs are reasonable.
Zero or negative interest force the prices higher creating massive inflation in housing. Now the average worker is priced out of a home periond. But there is a flip side to this too. Dividends and stock market increases have created money out of thin air. I used a 5x upswing in a postion to put down on a house, Now both my house and new stock position are up huge again.
This time the whole loan will be gone. Danger is the higher you go and fail the worse the fall. People are buying house with money created in valuations some where else, that is to me the reason housing is so high. Pay and earning do not pay on the housing today, its money in another investment driving the houses even higher.
Why not tax "primary residences" (ie. our homes) at the current level, and all others (ie. second homes & buy-to-let businesses) at a new REALLY HIGH level?
It is not about interest rate. More about lending more money.
Government should increase mortgage rate for buy to let scheme houses and second houses substantialy. Even government can get much more higher taxes for second houses.
Low mortgage rate on main houses if there is enough supply does not increase the price because the demand is rational.
Same thing in most western markets. As interest rates cheapen every gets FOMO and wants to buy now before missing out. Soon it becomes a free for all and you're playing musical chairs with 8 chairs and 20 people.
it all seems like a single man will have to work for his house until the end of his time, live for a few years there and die. it's really hard as a young and single man to prosper.
the narrator has a cynical British humor,love it!
Why haven't new houses got Solar and wind power?
Not yet enough market acceptance for developers to put solar on entire new developments. Government would have to mandate solar in buildings codes.
The video production is awfully similar to Vox youtube videos. I'm a fan of their style and the similarities are extensive with this.
what are the music used
SIMPLE SOLUTION:Buy CHEAPER HOUSING in CONSERVATIVE STATES for like over $100,000 to $350,000 alongside with cheaper prices for everything,high wages,and higher living standards!"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
Buy to live in or as an investment? If it's the latter, you might do OK for yourself but you're just kicking the can down the street in terms of solving the problem. A nation of renters all sharing houses well into adulthood and unable to raise families doesn't sound much like freedom to me.
Well, the only houses being built in bulk are chunks of investment for assholes. Luxury, badly built and with no local or community services like shops, doctors or parks.
Very refreshing and seemingly accurate perspective! What was the source for the data presented re. population growth?
Hi, it's Office of National Statistics data
Another thing people don't talk about which (I think) would be a factor is that women have entered the workforce. Surging supply of labour would mean that labour is less valuable. Even though there is more production, where a few generations ago one man required enough compensation to support his entire family... now he only needs enough compensation to support half of his family's costs - his wife earns the other half. What that means is that increased labour supply pushes down incomes, so families are forced into two parent working arrangements, and young people who aren't "teamed up" are priced out of the market.
Crank interest rates up and watch the bubble pop.
You forgot to mention the foreign speculators.
Doesn't it make a construction business ultra-super profitable?
Real estate investors only serve themselves. Up and coming lower class would be home buyers have to compete against the upper middle and upper classes for these homes. It makes me sick. We act like we are a mature species but really we are acting like children grabbing everything we can.
Just feel like a round about more than a ladder. I love my own home. We can save the deposit but can't get the loan big enough for where we live.
Low supply in desirable areas cheap credit and ability to leverage assets on new price not value specifically.
I am a devout capitalist but we need to place limits on monopolies and those buying up the housing market. That’s how the rich keep people poor
@Aubrey True. Which is why it’s such a difficult thing to change
There will be a huge mentality shift in the coming years, with millennials and gen Z feeling much more content to rent a nicer place than they could afford to own and put the bulk of their capital in investment funds / buying stable stocks such as Amazon and Google for much bigger returns than the housing market could provide. Once this shift happens (3-5 years seems to be the current 'zeitgeist cycle') house prices will naturally take a hit as the ‘value’ owning a home will decrease. This will then put pressure on boomers and Gen X to sell their homes in order to preserve any capital appreciation they had accumulated during the boom years, causing prices to decline further. JMHO. The economic impact from the pandemic will only serve to make millennials and gen Z even more eager to maximise the returns on their savings. Cryptocurrencies, investment funds and stocks are the future for wealth appreciation - not housing.
@@logbia7k608 What's happening in Japan?
Buy to let should be illegal.
Change my mind
I'm in the U.S.A. Many rent here because they don't wan't the responsibility and cost associated with maintaining the property. Those costs can be substantial and have in many cases risen faster than incomes.
Imagine buying a home and then not being able to afford the upkeep. Home ownership usually requires the buyer to buy tools and equipment, and become somewhat knowledgeable about the mechanical workings of the home or appliances, etc.
Renting also gives the renter the opportunity to live in a better place than they could otherwise afford by purchase. They often avoid transaction costs associated with buying and selling property. And no need to have prospective buyers walking through your home. When compared to buyers, renters usually have fewer personal belongings, so moving out is much easier.
Renting seems more expensive, but not always, and not by as much as those who profit by selling homes would have us believe.
@@RM-ed1if You can have rented social housing, you don't need it owned by a private individual seeking to make a profit.
Free market.
@@Anynamewilldo10 If you really love your free markets so much, why don't you go live in a Charles Dickens novel? Unregulated capitalism at its finest
@@Anynamewilldo10 Free dumb
And this time no Chinese Investors can't be blamed ! Wonder who will be the next scape goat ?
has it got anything to do with too many people living on a small planet?
Not really no
Find a copy of the book "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George, published in 1879. George explains how population size relates to social issues.
Simple, innit - load of money -> house -> profit. don't see how that could be inaccessible to anyone!
Some people don't have a load of money sadly
housing crisis is global issue. govy should impose high RPGT tax for first 10y, passed rent stabilization law.
300k immigrants every year won't help and creates a massive rental market!
Without systemic changes in law and taxation this will not improve. Only a high tax on the rental value of land has the potential to bring down land costs so housing can be built that people can afford.
This video is way way off the mark. One can safely ignore all of these factors to explain a rise in house prices - Fractional Reserve Banking driving inflation of house prices used for mortgage collateral.
Because boomers.
No land with planning permission
2:44 there's your answer on this graph plus red tape from the government.
GREED!
Guardian is just british vox..
This could have been summed up in a sec....SHEER GREED!!! SMH
nice video, annoying music
Two issues unaddressed. Firstly peoples spending preferences for nice location has changed vastly over the years. Reflected by global demand for property in London/SE (the main driver of HP inflation).
Secondly, the amount of housing consumed by owner occupiers has increased. Over the past two decades the number of owner occupiers with one or more empty bedroom has doubled. This has resulted in owners occupiers consuming an extra 12 million bedrooms compared to those that rent in Eng/Wales, pro rata.
Of course there are housing issues. The question is, what is to be done about them?
Instead of embarking on a costly house building exercise, we should first ask whether other options would be more effective and reduce costs instead of adding to them?
For example. A 100% tax on the rental value of land reduces its selling price to zero. The mechanism by which it does so is income re-distribution, typically to those that find housing unaffordable now. That results in housing being maximally affordable for that group, in a way no amount of house building can.
Such a tax also levels the playing field between tenures. That allows for the market to rationalise existing stock, negating the need to wastefully numbers/type currently projected.
Such a tax allows for the reduction/elimination of taxes on beneficial activities, growing the economy at a time we are in most need of it.
Exactly right. If only legislation could make it past the landed interests that contribute so much money to political parties and candidates.
People like to live in England with all those football hooligans, and drug heads😂
You are guaranteed to be assaulted in the street at night in England.
Have fun in the freezing cold weather there also.
Have fun with those rip off house prices also.
So have fun in the wind and rain in England with all these things😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This video is painfully slow
How did homes become so expensive?
Overpopulation.
No. Land speculation and land hoarding as population increased.
One word----government 💀
😡🚫⚖️
Systematic racism
Everybody wants one
Everyone *needs* one. But since some have many, many are left with none.
Buy bitcoin
Population increased simple
Redeeewweeew
Not in Hull they haven't.
Yes, there's a pretty drastic regional variation. We were going to cover this in the video but decided it was simpler to not include it in the end.
Just rent
Zero