• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
macca

Slumification of UK housing

Recommended Posts

Simple really, pack them in tight gives you the highest profit! This is what our masters are cooking up for us..

 

West is transitioning towards a globalized housing system, to reach the state of housing in BRICS (Brazil, India, and China). This is the basis of creating and keeping housing bubbles.

Contrary to what naive folks might assume, the really stupendous profits aren’t made in luxury buildings–they’re generated by tightly packed slums. Here’s how it works. Let’s say a middle-class flat of 600 square feet (7.5 square meters) goes for $1 per square foot. The slum’s equivalent 600 sq. ft. has been cut up into numerous cubbyhole rooms, each housing many people who each pay a relatively high fee for the miserable lodging. The rent per square foot in the slum is thus $5/sq. ft.

According to Davis (and this book is heavily, even obsessively footnoted/sourced), densities in Third World slums are astronomical–18,000 residents per acre is not uncommon. That’s four modest-sized 10,000 sq. ft. residential lots in the U.S. suburbs–4 houses that might house 8 people, total, not 18,000.

So slums are immensely profitable–much more profitable than permanent “middle-class” housing. And will you be surprised to learn that most of the property in these mega-city slums is concentrated in a few hands?

The net result of this great urban overcrowding/high-rents/profitability is indeed pernicious.

The Western housing market is in the process of gradual slumification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, macca said:

Simple really, pack them in tight gives you the highest profit! This is what our masters are cooking up for us..

 

West is transitioning towards a globalized housing system, to reach the state of housing in BRICS (Brazil, India, and China). This is the basis of creating and keeping housing bubbles.

Contrary to what naive folks might assume, the really stupendous profits aren’t made in luxury buildings–they’re generated by tightly packed slums. Here’s how it works. Let’s say a middle-class flat of 600 square feet (7.5 square meters) goes for $1 per square foot. The slum’s equivalent 600 sq. ft. has been cut up into numerous cubbyhole rooms, each housing many people who each pay a relatively high fee for the miserable lodging. The rent per square foot in the slum is thus $5/sq. ft.

According to Davis (and this book is heavily, even obsessively footnoted/sourced), densities in Third World slums are astronomical–18,000 residents per acre is not uncommon. That’s four modest-sized 10,000 sq. ft. residential lots in the U.S. suburbs–4 houses that might house 8 people, total, not 18,000.

So slums are immensely profitable–much more profitable than permanent “middle-class” housing. And will you be surprised to learn that most of the property in these mega-city slums is concentrated in a few hands?

The net result of this great urban overcrowding/high-rents/profitability is indeed pernicious.

The Western housing market is in the process of gradual slumification.

So you mean that we are going back to what it was like 150 years ago in the UK?...no, wait, we had an industrial base then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Isn’t this already happening? You can convert a two up two down terrace into 4 bijou one bed apartments. Bung in a small bathroom with a shower and toilet, small table top stove and the government classes it as a one bed flat for LHA purposes. You’ve gone from a two bed house to 4 one bed flats. Charge the LHA rate for each 1 bed flat and money in the bank.

Edited by Castlevania

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is already happening.. I would imagine the accidental increase in our population by our government is all part of the slumification of London and the huge increase in wealth for the 1% who own allot of the land.. 

what I don’t get is with 2/3rds of Londoners being on benefits who pays for this transfer of wealth.. and how long can they keep it going without bankrupting us..

What percentage of the London population are actually useful to our prosperity? 

And what percentage are just providing services for each other? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, macca said:

It is already happening.. I would imagine the accidental increase in our population by our government is all part of the slumification of London and the huge increase in wealth for the 1% who own allot of the land.. 

what I don’t get is with 2/3rds of Londoners being on benefits who pays for this transfer of wealth.. and how long can they keep it going without bankrupting us..

What percentage of the London population are actually useful to our prosperity? 

And what percentage are just providing services for each other? 

Who pays for the transfer of wealth?...previous generations by the selling off of infrastructure that they paid for via taxation, and the current generation  directly via income tax.....when will it stop?...when all of the silver has been sold and those that are working FT get sick of it and vote with their feet by relocating permanently overseas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MrXxx said:

Who pays for the transfer of wealth?...previous generations by the selling off of infrastructure that they paid for via taxation, and the current generation  directly via income tax.....when will it stop?...when all of the silver has been sold and those that are working FT get sick of it and vote with their feet by relocating permanently overseas. 

Already happing, productivity is tanking.  You can ‘leave’ your job without actually leaving it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, macca said:

Simple really, pack them in tight gives you the highest profit! This is what our masters are cooking up for us..

I recall Jack London described very clearly the same dynamic in the East end of London at the start of the 20th century (in "People of the abyss"). Ordinary, or even quite well-to-do streets, gradually eaten up by the slums, because the original residents couldn't afford to live there any more; the well-to-do couldn't compete with the money of the poor when packed tightly enough. That was without the rocket-fuel of state benefits.

I guess that unwound a decade or so later, with the slaughter of the Great War.

Again, Eric Arthur Blair ("The road to Wigan pier") described conditions not quite so harrowing (and I don't think he was very explicit about the creeping tide of slums), but comparable, nonetheless. That devaluation of work, and spiral of low, and below-subsistence wages, was reversed by the second war.

It would be nice to think that we will find a less gruesome way out - or rather that the piles of human tinder gradually accumulating; the despondent, with a nothing-left-to-lose kind of freedom, won't be sparked to conflagration by some supremely self-centred rabble-rouser, or sent out to die in a concocted war to stop them from rebellion at home.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, One percent said:

Already happing, productivity is tanking.  You can ‘leave’ your job without actually leaving it 

Yep, you can get your feet under the table at any reasonably large corp and just check out. I do short contracts in IT at investment banks; the permanent staff I encounter broadly fall into three categories: (1) not up to the job, but impossible to sack, (2) smart but lazy (waiting for redundancy money) and (3) smart and willing. The number of people who fall into the third bucket is tiny, and most of the people in the first two buckets are on six figures plus a bonus, there or thereabouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnythingWithWheels said:

Yep, you can get your feet under the table at any reasonably large corp and just check out. I do short contracts in IT at investment banks; the permanent staff I encounter broadly fall into three categories: (1) not up to the job, but impossible to sack, (2) smart but lazy (waiting for redundancy money) and (3) smart and willing. The number of people who fall into the third bucket is tiny, and most of the people in the first two buckets are on six figures plus a bonus, there or thereabouts.

Any jobs going?  xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

Eh?  xD

Lack of relevant skills is no bar to employment in investment banking :)

I wish I was joking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.