Pretty depressing reading.

[Edit] I had the archive link as a comment but this has gained enough traction that it’s not obvious. Here it is again so you don’t have to give FT any clicks https://archive.is/ypkln

  • frazorth@feddit.ukOPEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

    Unfortunately the solutions are opposed by both sides, as lefties are arguing points about house building not reducing costs which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    https://archive.is/LtQFc

    If we build a million McMansions, they won’t sell for £500k+ due to oversupply.

    “Affordable housing” is just basically building more at this point, the reason you can sell ex-council houses for over £300k is because, as the article you didn’t read says, 1 in 200 are homeless due to insufficient housing.

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      0·
      5 months ago

      .5% of UK is homeless?

      US official number is .25% but it doesn’t account for people living in cars and other form “invisiable” homelessness, which eatimated to be much larger number than visiable

      • frazorth@feddit.ukOPEnglish
        0·
        5 months ago

        Then you should read the article.

        This is the official statistics for people living in temporary accommodation whilst waiting for a house. These are families living in single room accommodation like a hotel room.

        • sunzu@kbin.run
          0·
          5 months ago

          Sounds like the contents then don’t support the headline.

          I don’t click corpo propaganda btw, let their owners pay for it themselves lol

            • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.netEnglish
              0·
              5 months ago

              Which they would know, if they had read the article, right?

              Edit: I shouldn’t comment just to express salt at someone, so actually also, thanks OP for the no-paywall link.

              • frazorth@feddit.ukOPEnglish
                0·
                5 months ago

                Yes, I’m not sure how the preferred way to present content on here is yet so I gave the original URL as the link and then commented the archive link. I sometimes see people complaining that they don’t see the body, so it sounds like we have to work around some crappy clients too.

                If there is a preferred way of presenting this then I will update the submission.

                • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.netEnglish
                  0·
                  5 months ago

                  Yeah, stuff like this is messy. I like that we’re all muddling along and figuring things out as they go. Much of this is a problem with distributed social media — but not “problem” in a bad way, but something to overcome.

                  Practically, I don’t know if there’s a better way to do it, because as you say, there’s not a one size fits all solution. I just wanted to say thanks because I probably wouldn’t have read the article myself if I had to get a no-paywall link myself, so the little conveniences help.