Tim Worstall

6 responses so far ↓

• 1 MarkS // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  “No, not in the sense that the feckless can simply sit their and moulder…”

  Don’t these people have subs?

• 2 Martin // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  Tim,

  Your piece on social housing makes no allowance for the impact demographic factors such as immigration might have not only upon the availability of housing but also upon the employment market. Its sweep is too broad to render it a credible proposition.

• 3 Mark Wadsworth // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  Turnover in social housing is lower than turnover in owner-occupied sector (the last twelve months are abnormally low).

  John Hills reckoned Table S7.

  And if you can be bothered to read the report, he also chats knowledgeably about this immobility restricting job-mobility.

• 4 Mark Wadsworth // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:32 pm

  Oops. Forgot to close a tag or something.

  ” …reckoned less than 5% annual turnover in social housing, see Table S7 of this.

• 5 john b // Jun 17, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  @ TW and MW – surely part of the reason why social housing turnover is so low is the massive reduction of supply in social housing post-Thatcher? (i.e. the existing stock is being run down, so it’s no wonder there’s a six-year waiting list, so it’s no wonder anyone who’s got a house will hold onto it). A fairer comparison would be between 1978 and 2008. Not sure if this data is available though…

• 6 Mark Wadsworth // Jun 17, 2008 at 5:15 pm

  John B, I don’t think so. People are loath to leave social housing – if they haven’t got a job there’s nowhere to go; if they are offered a low-wage job somewhere far away they can’t move into social housing near where their new job is; if they do have a job they are quite happy paying below-market rents; or finally, if they do have a job and can afford to rent privately, they just sub-let their old social flat at market rent and pocket the difference.

  Hence this idea that I fleshed out for the Citizen’s Income Trust.

Leave a Comment