shortcrust Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 A century ago I could have gone out and murdered men to take from them land for myself. I'd struggle to do that today. I'm constrained by the state. Where could you have done this a century ago?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I'd be building lots of housing myself if the state allowed it. Where, on the green belt ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 We can mass produce lots of housing with very little labour. The Egyptians had enough surplus labour to build pyramids. We have structural unemployment and poor housing. I'd be building lots of housing myself if the state allowed it. and we can just magic them up, dont forget were just coming out of a recession, the house building sector was one of the hardest hit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 We can mass produce lots of housing with very little labour. The Egyptians had enough surplus labour to build pyramids. We have structural unemployment and poor housing. I'd be building lots of housing myself if the state allowed it. Where is the money coming from for this? The house opposite me is a shared house between 4 young working people. They seem very happy and cause no problems for anyone. I think it's a better situation than using up 4 properties and be saddled with huge bills/debts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 It's more about a place to live. And what that place is. A century ago I could have gone out and murdered men to take from them land for myself. I'd struggle to do that today. I'm constrained by the state. So minimum quality housing and cheap rent is something that should be ensured by the state. Really, you think murdering people in the early 1900's was the way things worked... I think you might have been quite disappointed with the result, and hanging from a noose not long afterwards. The state isn't your parent, it isn't responsible for you living your life. We all live in the same situation, paying rent or choosing an alternative (buying generally) is just something you need to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 We can mass produce lots of housing with very little labour. Building a house isn't cheap, even with 'mass production', it's labour intensive, it requires land and materials and expertise. The Egyptians had enough surplus labour to build pyramids. You might want to check up on the way they managed that. We have structural unemployment and poor housing. Full employment is an impossible and foolish dream. I'd be building lots of housing myself if the state allowed it. The state allows it, go do it, buy land, hire labour, build. Then what, sell it or become one of those landlords that you so hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Where is the money coming from for this? The house opposite me is a shared house between 4 young working people. They seem very happy and cause no problems for anyone. I think it's a better situation than using up 4 properties and be saddled with huge bills/debts. This is a good point, and we've been distracted. What is it that the OP finds so wrong about shared housing for young professionals, why is sharing a house a sign of the world going mad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 We need debate, and SF is a great medium through which to do so. It's open to everyone. I'm not putting enough effort into my posts of late, but its very tiring to search, read and reference things before posting. A mini rant after a few beers is as easy as pie. White papers are about an hour or so to read! It'd be nice if some of the long time lurkers posted. But you don't debate the problem. You regurgitate the same tired weak unsupported arguments time after time. You told us (in the above post) that you can't be bothered to research the subject properly, then you complained (in the same post) that people don't pay any attention to what you write and that they can't be bothered to reply to you. If you can't be bothered to research the matter and you limit yourself to ranting after you've been on the beer, what do you expect? It's more about a place to live. And what that place is. A century ago I could have gone out and murdered men to take from them land for myself. I'd struggle to do that today. I'm constrained by the state. So minimum quality housing and cheap rent is something that should be ensured by the state. Had you gone out and murdered somebody to get a house, you would've got a small cell. For a short time. Then a long drop. You would've been executed by the state. 'So minimum quality housing...' How does that follow? Another unsupported assertion. Why do you think that because you are not allowed to rob people the state should provide you with a house? You (usually) appear to be saying: "I don't earn a lot of money and I like to spend my money on booze and tobacco, so somebody else should pay for a decent house for me to live in." That doesn't follow, either. The state doesn't have any money. It takes money from the people who pay taxes. Why should those people support you? We can mass produce lots of housing with very little labour. The Egyptians had enough surplus labour to build pyramids. We have structural unemployment and poor housing. I'd be building lots of housing myself if the state allowed it. Go ahead! Buy some land, tell Sheffield council you are gong to build cheap (but efficient, sturdy and well-insulated) homes and you are going to provide them (at no cost) to people who can't afford them. I doubt you'll have any problem getting permission to build. They'll probably bite your hand off. If the state won't do it and you think it should be done, do it yourself. How much are you going to pay the people who build the houses for you? I don't suppose many of them will want to work for minimum wage (and you've already told us on more than one occasion that wages are too low, so presumably you'll be paying top rates.) It's good to see that underneath the persona you portray on this forum there is a gifted entrepreneur. Will you be registering as self-employed tomorrow and starting your house-building enterprise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vwkittie Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 House sharing is not 'living like an animal'. The one who is mad is you for thinking that! Young, working people sharing a house is not a new thing and it works very well for many people, myself included a few years ago. What is the problem?! You sound barking to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 House sharing is not 'living like an animal'. The one who is mad is you for thinking that! Young, working people sharing a house is not a new thing and it works very well for many people, myself included a few years ago. What is the problem?! You sound barking to be honest indeed sheffield has always been massive for shared housing, ive lived in a few (and got thrown out of em) in my time they arent for everyone, it can be harsh living with people you dont know, and can annoy the bejebous out of you lol but its good to share the rent and bills etc, specially if you dont actually need a whole house Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.