A few choice paras (if people don't read the full article):
"The forthcoming general election is once again likely to be dominated by claims about a housing shortage and a dire need to build more homes. Housebuilding is an article of faith across the political spectrum. The evidence, however, does not support this thinking. Quite the reverse. Over the last 25 years, there has not just been a constant surplus of homes per household, but the ratio has been modestly growing while our living situations have been getting so much worse. In London, as the Conservative Home blog notes, there is a terrible housing crisis “even though its population is roughly the same as it was 70 years ago”, when the city was still extensively bomb-damaged by the second world war."
"The supply issue continues to dominate the discourse despite the US having more homes per capita than at any point in its history, and the UK’s homes-per-capita ratio actually exceeds the US’s."
"In terms of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, the UK has roughly the average number of homes per capita: 468 per 1,000 people in 2019. We have a comparable amount of housing to the Netherlands, Hungary or Canada, and our housing stock far exceeds many more affordable places such as Poland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic."
That argument presumes that housing is consumed the same way it was 70 years ago, and that the location of the housing is irrelevant.
I know lots of places where there are empty, cheap houses. They're not close to any good jobs, the only Internet they have is 3G, and the schools suck because the county is poor (because no one wants to live there).
I also suspect housing consumption per-capita is up as people move out younger and marry later. Especially in population centers.
I'm not sure what they're pointing to as the reason for housing prices if it's not supply and demand.
And you either have to make the "cheap places" more desirable (which raises their prices, but lowers pressure elsewhere) or you have to build more housing in the desirable areas.
You also have the issue that if someone does have a house, no matter what kind of house, it's a hassle and a half to move, so you have to provide some pretty darn strong incentives to get people to move.
My house ain't great, but I'd need something like $10-20k to consider moving to a nearly identical or even somewhat better house, just because of the costs and hassle associated with moving.
I think the main argument they are making is that affordability is less a demand/supply issue and more a tax policy issue. Implication being: if you cap rental income, you'll see a fall in private landlords but not necessarily less housing stock than if there were no rent controls.
>I'm not sure what they're pointing to as the reason for housing prices if it's not supply and demand.
They are saying the uncapped rental market makes housing as an asset class extremely profitable i.e. simple supply & demand argument is not strong enough alone to be the only driver.
Housing per capita may not be the best measurement, if households are changing. What may have been two parents and some kids in one house after the war may now be two separate households because of divorce, etc.
