[sugar-n-spice]

this doesnt need to be made into equations for anybody to see you dont have constant demand for social houses so in the long run it wont decrease the amount of people needing houses by the amount of houses the government has.

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
this doesnt need to be made into equations for anybody to see you dont have constant demand for social houses so in the long run it wont decrease the amount of people needing houses by the amount of houses the government has.

Don't you just love the snide, patronising way he's completely missing the point, though?

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
That's an increase unrelated to right to buy. Let's call it X. It's the same with or without right to buy:

E + X -> (P-1) - (H-1) + X = (P - H) + ( -1 - (-1)) + X = (P - H) + (-1 + 1) + X = (P - H) + X = E + X

The excess is again unchanged by the right to buy. It still exists, but right to buy doesn't make it better or worse.

edit: Also, I'm not claiming E decreases. I don't think you followed that at all.


Why do I want people to live as permanent tenants of the state? That is horrible. If some people need money to afford to not live in the gutter, then give it to them as cash and let them spend it on housing of their choice. This exists, and is called housing benefit.
It's not about making money for the government. I would be happy simply giving the current council houses to their occupants for free.

The need for council houses, X, is always increasing, that is correct. But you can't say that it is unrelated to the total number of council houses decreasing, which will be at a faster rate than without this new proposal.
Rather than anyone's basic maths failing, it's your terrible grasp of logic that's the problem here.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
The need for council houses, X, is always increasing, that is correct. But you can't say that it is unrelated to the total number of council houses decreasing, which will be at a faster rate than without this new proposal.

I can not only claim it, but prove it.

Rather than anyone's basic maths failing, it's your terrible grasp of logic that's the problem here.

If you still can't see it when spelled out in what I thought was patronising simplicity, you need to go back to school.

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
I can not only claim it, but prove it.

Ok, I'm calling your bluff. Prove it.

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
If you still can't see it when spelled out in what I thought was patronising simplicity, you need to go back to school.

Well I thought I was learning enough maths from my engineering degree, but, do you really think going back to school would help my "basic maths failings"?

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
Ok, I'm calling your bluff. Prove it.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post37015807

Well I thought I was learning enough maths from my engineering degree, but, do you really think going back to school would help my "basic maths failings"?

Yes.

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post37015807


Yes.

Yeah, that's an incredible proof there. I particularly like the way the variables increase or decrease by 1 unit in an unstated time period. It's genius.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
Yeah, that's an incredible proof there. I particularly like the way the variables increase or decrease by 1 unit

Houses are a discrete quantity.

in an unstated time period.

It's a map - the variables are reassessed each time a house is sold. There's nothing untoward about that.

It's genius.

I've been a dick about this but only because I do not understand why this is so unclear to people. The supply is decreased, and the demand is decreased by exactly the same amount! There is no increase in shortage as a result. I really hope that you don't apply this sort of logic as an engineer.

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
Houses are a discrete quantity.


It's a map - the variables are reassessed each time a house is sold. There's nothing untoward about that.


I've been a dick about this but only because I do not understand why this is so unclear to people. The supply is decreased, and the demand is decreased by exactly the same amount! There is no increase in shortage as a result. I really hope that you don't apply this sort of logic as an engineer.

I'll try to explain this in a different way.
The supply is decreased by 1 with every sale.
Council houses are built at below replacement rate.
Therefore the supply constantly decreases.
The demand is, however, ever increasing. (even taking into account that one tenant no longer requires their council house. Even though it is debatable that they needed one once they could afford a mortgage.)
I hope this is clear enough for you.

[mabrookes]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
I'm not sure I understand. The population is increasing, therefore the number of people needing social housing will increase (assuming the proportions remain reasonably constant). Some social housing will be sold off, at a discount, and eventually it will be sold to someone who is not struggling, and hasd no need for it. Very few council houses are being built, nowhere near unough to keep up with demand. All of this equals fewer houses for those who are in the greatest need.

The only argument is where the funds go, the idea is perfectly fine.

The houses only needs to be sold for the price of a new build, plus a bit extra. Houses are pretty cheap to build relatively speaking, so it should be easy to get the price of a new build plus 50% (even 25% would be worth it) of the price of another. This means every house sold pays for a replacement and adds funds for more housing that needed building and paying for anyway.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
I'll try to explain this in a different way.
The supply is decreased by 1 with every sale.
Council houses are built at below replacement rate.
Therefore the supply constantly decreases.
The demand is, however, ever increasing. (even taking into account that one tenant no longer requires their council house. Even though it is debatable that they needed one once they could afford a mortgage.)
I hope this is clear enough for you.

The increase in demand is due to exogenous factors that would exist regardless of whether there is a right to buy or not. The growth in demand slows by exactly the same rate at which number of council houses decreases.



Where do you study engineering? Are you in 1st year?

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by mabrookes)
The only argument is where the funds go, the idea is perfectly fine.

The houses only needs to be sold for the price of a new build, plus a bit extra. Houses are pretty cheap to build relatively speaking, so it should be easy to get the price of a new build plus 50% (even 25% would be worth it) of the price of another. This means every house sold pays for a replacement and adds funds for more housing that needed building and paying for anyway.

That would be a workable solution to the problem, but I don't think the government have given any indication that they're going to compel local councils to spend the money on more houses.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
The number of council houses needed to meet the current obligations decreases by exactly the same amount as the number of houses available decreases. The houses sold off do not disappear into the aether, leaving the former residents to go back into the council house system! This 'problem' seems to be a failure of basic maths.

The only net effect of the right to buy is to transfer the same people from being wards of the state to being self-sufficient property owners.

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
The increase in demand is due to exogenous factors that would exist regardless of whether there is a right to buy or not. The growth in demand slows by exactly the same rate at which number of council houses decreases.

The growth in demand would slow, as people would be selling and moving out of the council housing, but the demand would still be increasing while the number of houses decreases.
The number of council houses decreasing is the problem that people have with this policy. I trust we can agree that they will, in fact, be decreasing?

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
Where do you study engineering? Are you in 1st year?

I study with the OU. I'm in the 2nd year.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
I'm wondering how to explain this more clearly. The most simple way is:

1+1=2

but the connection apparently isn't so obvious?

What we are interested in is the number of people without council houses (E, for excess), which is the number of people who need them (P) minus the number of houses (H).

E = P - H

When you sell a council house under right to buy you reduce the number of council houses by one, so H -> H - 1

But you also reduce the number of people who need council houses by one, so P -> P - 1

So, E -> (P-1) - (H-1) = (P - H) + ( -1 - (-1)) = (P - H) + (-1 + 1) = P - H = E

So the excess, E, is unchanged by the right to buy. If E is changing due to some other factor (increasing due to immigration or whatever), it would change by the same amount regardless of right to buy.

Pretty much all housing experts would disagree with you, including the chief exec of Shelter.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
I can not only claim it, but prove it.


If you still can't see it when spelled out in what I thought was patronising simplicity, you need to go back to school.

The only thing you've proved is that you're a cock.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
The growth in demand would slow, as people would be selling and moving out of the council housing, but the demand would still be increasing while the number of houses decreases.
The number of council houses decreasing is the problem that people have with this policy. I trust we can agree that they will, in fact, be decreasing?

No one ever disagreed with that. What you don't seem to understand is we're interested in relative, not absolute, quantities. It's possible for the quantity of houses to decrease and yet the number available to increase, if the demand is decreasing even faster. That's not what happens with right to buy, but there's no prima facie reason to expect any shortage to increase.

(Original post by Kibalchich)
Pretty much all housing experts would disagree with you,

I look forward to them posting their comments.

including the chief exec of Shelter.

Shelter is a lobby group, not an academic research institution.

[najinaji]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
You've posted this for a joke, right? The government can't be thinking of implementing a policy that'll decimate the social housing stock, again, when there's a huge shortage of social housing?!

Edit: Oh, you weren't joking. This is, without a doubt, a terrible idea. I feel partly responsible for this entire mess by voting for Clegg. (Obviously I couldn't forsee the Con-Dem coalition, but still. Thought I'd uburden my soul)

You do realise that it is near-impossible for those in council housing to get onto the housing ladder without schemes like this?

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
No one ever disagreed with that. What you don't seem to understand is we're interested in relative, not absolute, quantities. It's possible for the quantity of houses to decrease and yet the number available to increase, if the demand is decreasing even faster. That's not what happens with right to buy, but there's no prima facie reason to expect any shortage to increase.

I thought your argument was that demand would decrease by 1, with the number of houses decreasing by 1. The demand couldn't decrease faster unless your lovely equation earlier missed an important variable (along with all it's other failings).

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by najinaji)
You do realise that it is near-impossible for those in council housing to get onto the housing ladder without schemes like this?

Yes, this scheme results in the people who need help the least i.e. people who can afford a mortgage for a (albeit discounted) house getting on the property ladder. The problem I have is that fewer of the people in the greatest need will be able to get council housing.
If more council housing was being built I would have no problem with RTB.