chem1st Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Figures release today show the sharpest drop in construction output for 2 and a half years. http://www.markiteconomics.com/MarkitFiles/Pages/ViewPressRelease.aspx?ID=9763 A lack of new work to replace existing projects, alongside the need to cut costs, resulted in a marginal decline in construction employment. This was the first fall in workforce numbers since February. Sub-contractor usage also declined in June, and at the sharpest pace since August 2011. Yesterday permission for 24 family homes was refused in Sheffield. There could have been employment and building upon an old settlement where people were once housed in times past, but not for a while now, unless the developers appeal at considerable cost, making the development less economical. So we have lost out on 24 family homes and work for the men folk. So next time you see an unemployed builder with 2 children living in a flat without access to any green space whatsoever, why not kick him when he is down. When you buy a bottle of beer/pack of fags/lottery ticket or pay some other tax, be content in the knowledge that you need to pay the tax to pay the dole of the unemployed builders. Smile at the homeless people, and pat yourself on the back for opposing housing and keeping your fellow men down. Celebrate homelessness and unemployment, buy some Chinese tat, just don't think about your pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Figures release today show the sharpest drop in construction output for 2 and a half years. http://www.markiteconomics.com/MarkitFiles/Pages/ViewPressRelease.aspx?ID=9763 Yesterday permission for 24 family homes was refused in Sheffield. There could have been employment and building upon an old settlement where people were once housed in times past, but not for a while now, unless the developers appeal at considerable cost, making the development less economical. So we have lost out on 24 family homes and work for the men folk. So next time you see an unemployed builder with 2 children living in a flat without access to any green space whatsoever, why not kick him when he is down. When you buy a bottle of beer/pack of fags/lottery ticket or pay some other tax, be content in the knowledge that you need to pay the tax to pay the dole of the unemployed builders. Smile at the homeless people, and pat yourself on the back for opposing housing and keeping your fellow men down. Celebrate homelessness and unemployment, buy some Chinese tat, just don't think about your pensions. plenty of houses to let...so why build any more....only got to search the web to find loads of empty houses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Yesterday permission for 24 family homes was refused in Sheffield. There could have been employment and building upon an old settlement where people were once housed in times past, but not for a while now, unless the developers appeal at considerable cost, making the development less economical.This is getting silly now. Did you even read any of the links/comments about this application? Or deign to reply to any of the replies to your other posts on the subject? Take heed - it was never a settlement, it's the remmants of an Iron Age hill fort ... not a village settlement. Think Cark Wark, do you want that built over as well? You philistine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 plenty of houses to let...so why build any more....only got to search the web to find loads of empty houses... Empty because too expensive. Price needs to be driven down to 0. Supply must exceed demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Empty because too expensive. Price needs to be driven down to 0. Supply must exceed demand.So, if the price is £0 - who is going to pay the brick suppliers, the builders and anyone else connected with the provision? The poor wage slave from his/her taxes? Or how else do you propose it be financed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Empty because too expensive. Price needs to be driven down to 0. Supply must exceed demand. No one would build houses to sell/rent them for 0.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Empty because too expensive. Price needs to be driven down to 0. Supply must exceed demand. yes another free ride....good job we don't live in greece..their government just sold off their social housing to property developers... for mega bucks because the occupiers were behind with the rent....and now its been sold in record time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 So, if the price is £0 - who is going to pay the brick suppliers, the builders and anyone else connected with the provision? The poor wage slave from his/her taxes? Or how else do you propose it be financed? Company builds them, then the public bails out the company. Or the company goes bust and the government seizes the buildings. Like the banks. Like Parkhill. (Privatised at cost to public of £30million and rising - now going to be occupied by more people on benefit, than owner occupiers - not to mention the decade+ loss of rent and ctax upon 1000 properties) (Total cost of sticking on cladding IRO £160 million) Like Newbuy - government guaranteed mortgages. We either employ ourselves, or pay ourselves unemployment benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 No one would build houses to sell/rent them for 0.. Aye, but the price would only reach 0 when there is an oversupply. So there would no longer be a need to build houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Aye, but the price would only reach 0 when there is an oversupply. So there would no longer be a need to build houses. so who pays for them before they reach 0.. if someone had paid for the house they would be highly unlikely to sell/rent it for 0 no matter what the supply/demand was..they'd hold on to it..this would reduce the supply and the price would begin to rise again...also as the prices began to fall due to oversupply the builders would stop building... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.