NFL UK Forums

NFL UK Forums (https://forum.nfluk.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic - Entertainment/News (https://forum.nfluk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Politics (https://forum.nfluk.com/showthread.php?t=49460)

davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk 16.02.2013 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarchy in the WV (Post 1774881)
Doesn't England rank towards the bottom of the developed world in survival rates for almost all major health issues? Cancers, heath attacks, strokes, etc.

Looking at individual illnesses is very unhelpful because everybody dies of something. Death from illness is interconnected.

For example, the good work that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is doing in Africa will inevitably cause a lot of the people it treats to die of cancer, heart attacks and strokes.

Fact or fiction?

Fact, of course. Those illnesses are primarily diseases of the old. If you prevent millions of children from dying of Malaria they hopefully survive long enough to die from age related diseases instead. Not a bad thing at all. We should all be so lucky.

According to the CIA factbook the UK ranks 20th in life expectancy among UN Nations. The US is 33rd. This, despite the US spending 17.6% of GDP on health. In the UK it is only 9.6%. That is 8233 dollars a year (PPP) spent by the US on each of its citizens compared to 3433 in the UK. And what does the US get for its money? The average US citizen dies 2 years sooner than in the UK. What of? Don't know. Does it matter?

Now if you broke it down by wealth and status it could well be that the wealthiest Americans live longer than anybody. The elite everywhere tend to beat the average. But all this means is that they are doing it at the expense of their poor, who presumably have a life expectancy somewhere in the region of Turkmenistan. Averages are like that.

There must be millions of US citizens who can't afford healthcare and presumably this is why the life expectancy is lower. If you are poor in the US and you get cancer, do people just let you die? I can't believe that. That would be like some terrible death march, with the fit staying fit because they can keep up the front where the food is, while the stragglers are left to die where they fall.

davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk 16.02.2013 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiantsFan10 (Post 1774545)
Rent control is needed in London, has been needed for a while

I don't think that is the answer.

Greedy landlords are not the problem. They are just like any other businessman, trying to get the best price they can. The reason they can command a high price is because so many people want to live in London. People are prepared to pay a lot of money to live here. Demand is high.

In economic terms supply is inelastic because building in London is quite tightly controlled. It is a city of houses rather than skyscrapers. The green belt stops it spreading out. Okay so there are some developments but they are nothing compared to the pent up demand for housing which cannot be satisfied because we will not build up (much) or out.

If the green belt was scrapped London would explode in all directions, the M25 would become an urban road and rents (and house prices) in the city would come down.

But mandatory rent control? What would that achieve?

It wouldn't reduce the demand for housing. On the contrary, reducing the price for something increases the demand for it.

It wouldn't increase supply. Faced with a mandatory drop in yield landlords would reduce supply by selling up. Supply would drop.

All it would do is make it impossible to rent in London, because the cosy insiders would keep a death grip on their low rents. Nobody would move. When a new flat became available there would be dozens or possibly hundreds of applicants. In reality a lot of tenants would sub-let, turning themselves into the greedy landlords everybody hates.

Whenever you suppress a market you create a black market.

This is just like social housing. When housing is artificially priced below the market rate there is excess demand and reduced social mobility. How many people move out of a council house? Even when their circumstances improve?

European Bob 16.02.2013 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk (Post 1774917)
Looking at individual illnesses is very unhelpful because everybody dies of something. Death from illness is interconnected.

For example, the good work that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is doing in Africa will inevitably cause a lot of the people it treats to die of cancer, heart attacks and strokes.

Fact or fiction?

Fact, of course. Those illnesses are primarily diseases of the old. If you prevent millions of children from dying of Malaria they hopefully survive long enough to die from age related diseases instead. Not a bad thing at all. We should all be so lucky.

According to the CIA factbook the UK ranks 20th in life expectancy among UN Nations. The US is 33rd. This, despite the US spending 17.6% of GDP on health. In the UK it is only 9.6%. That is 8233 dollars a year (PPP) spent by the US on each of its citizens compared to 3433 in the UK. And what does the US get for its money? The average US citizen dies 2 years sooner than in the UK. What of? Don't know. Does it matter?

Now if you broke it down by wealth and status it could well be that the wealthiest Americans live longer than anybody. The elite everywhere tend to beat the average. But all this means is that they are doing it at the expense of their poor, who presumably have a life expectancy somewhere in the region of Turkmenistan. Averages are like that.

There must be millions of US citizens who can't afford healthcare and presumably this is why the life expectancy is lower. If you are poor in the US and you get cancer, do people just let you die? I can't believe that. That would be like some terrible death march, with the fit staying fit because they can keep up the front where the food is, while the stragglers are left to die where they fall.

It's not just that the rich can get the food though, it's what they eat. And that's America's problem. Diabolical diet and lifestyle. America is just generally quite an extreme country that takes everything to excess, I can't think of anywhere else quite like it... perhaps Russia and South Africa the closest thing. The ads you see during the NFL for all the terrible food show you enough of that. Everything is to excess and it's often processed and poor quality. I would love to know the calorie and sat fat difference between an American pizza and an Italian pizza, for example. American bread is 3 times the calories of Italian bread, and the pizza comes with a month's supply of cheese on it. And then there's the driving everywhere and lack of exercise. Healthcare helps lifespan but diet is really important too - there's a reason Mediterranean life expectancy is so long. Within Europe, I would think UK diets are among the worst (I think I once read specifically Scotland was bottom of the pile) so that probably skews the stats a bit.

HSTDriver 16.02.2013 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk (Post 1774924)
I don't think that is the answer.

Greedy landlords are not the problem. They are just like any other businessman, trying to get the best price they can. The reason they can command a high price is because so many people want to live in London. People are prepared to pay a lot of money to live here. Demand is high.

In economic terms supply is inelastic because building in London is quite tightly controlled. It is a city of houses rather than skyscrapers. The green belt stops it spreading out. Okay so there are some developments but they are nothing compared to the pent up demand for housing which cannot be satisfied because we will not build up (much) or out.

If the green belt was scrapped London would explode in all directions, the M25 would become an urban road and rents (and house prices) in the city would come down.

But mandatory rent control? What would that achieve?

It wouldn't reduce the demand for housing. On the contrary, reducing the price for something increases the demand for it.

It wouldn't increase supply. Faced with a mandatory drop in yield landlords would reduce supply by selling up. Supply would drop.

All it would do is make it impossible to rent in London, because the cosy insiders would keep a death grip on their low rents. Nobody would move. When a new flat became available there would be dozens or possibly hundreds of applicants. In reality a lot of tenants would sub-let, turning themselves into the greedy landlords everybody hates.

Whenever you suppress a market you create a black market.

This is just like social housing. When housing is artificially priced below the market rate there is excess demand and reduced social mobility. How many people move out of a council house? Even when their circumstances improve?

How many properties are empty in London?

I earn 50k and have to commute from Essex to Paddington because I can't afford anywhere closer. It's shambolic.

davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk 16.02.2013 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSTDriver (Post 1774938)
How many properties are empty in London?

I earn 50k and have to commute from Essex to Paddington because I can't afford anywhere closer. It's shambolic.

I don't see swathes of boarded up houses in Central London. People move out and it takes a little while to get new tenants, landlords do up houses and this takes time, people die and their house is uninhabited while their estate is sorted out. People work abroad for long periods. But really these are minority cases. There are not millions of permanently empty houses in London.

As for living closer, that is about value, surely. You get more bang for your buck in Essex. If you really wanted to live in London then you could. There are plenty of ungentrified places in Newham, Tower Hamlets, Barking... If you mean Chelsea or Westminster then yes they are more expensive. Not everyone can live there.

davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk 16.02.2013 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by European Bob (Post 1774926)
It's not just that the rich can get the food though, it's what they eat. And that's America's problem. Diabolical diet and lifestyle. ...... Healthcare helps lifespan but diet is really important too - there's a reason Mediterranean life expectancy is so long. Within Europe, I would think UK diets are among the worst (I think I once read specifically Scotland was bottom of the pile) so that probably skews the stats a bit.

Very true. I love this graphic:

http://www.jamesnava.com/wp-content/...ualization.jpg

But Mediterranean is a bit of a misnomer. The Greeks are about as tubby as we are and their life expectancy is lower.

Nor does it explain Australia. Australia is #6 in the UN rankings, beating every European country, Mediterranean or not.

Australian men live the longest of any men. Anywhere. Possibly longer than Japanese men (on 2011 estimates). Except for a few wealthy enclaves that skew the figures. i.e. places like Monaco have high longevity because wealthy people migrate there in droves, you would have to say Australians are very healthy.

But Australians are fat. Not as fat as the US but just as fat as the UK. Their health spending is very similar to the UK as well.

Or are they? Because obesity is a difficult thing to measure. The usual measurement is BMI but olympic sprinters are obese if you use BMI, because it does not distinguish fat from muscle.

Maybe it is the sunshine.

HSTDriver 16.02.2013 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk (Post 1774947)
I don't see swathes of boarded up houses in Central London. People move out and it takes a little while to get new tenants, landlords do up houses and this takes time, people die and their house is uninhabited while their estate is sorted out. People work abroad for long periods. But really these are minority cases. There are not millions of permanently empty houses in London.

As for living closer, that is about value, surely. You get more bang for your buck in Essex. If you really wanted to live in London then you could. There are plenty of ungentrified places in Newham, Tower Hamlets, Barking... If you mean Chelsea or Westminster then yes they are more expensive. Not everyone can live there.

There are around 80k empty properties in London right now, was on lbc just this week.

And you're right it is about lifestyle, but nobody should be forced into a situation where they live just to work. Londoners generally have the balance all wrong, and that's not always by choice.

davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk 16.02.2013 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSTDriver (Post 1774955)
There are around 80k empty properties in London right now, was on lbc just this week.

And you're right it is about lifestyle, but nobody should be forced into a situation where they live just to work. Londoners generally have the balance all wrong, and that's not always by choice.

As I said, hardly any.

A lot of those will be empty for good reason, because they are being refurbished, rebuilt, are unfit for human habitation or belong to people who travel a lot. Others will be on the market (after deaths, etc) and nobody wants to buy them.

80,000 homes is going to be appx 2% of the housing stock in a city of 8 million. Which means 98% of the homes in London are permanently occupied. Which hardly suggests a crisis of empty houses. It seems quite reasonable to me that 1 in 50 properties might be legitimately between owners, going through inheritance, on the market with a deceased owner, being refurbished, have been repossessed, belong to people who travel, etc.

One of those cases surely when a big number sounds impressive, until it is examined in context.

By contrast appx 1 in 7 homes in Detroit is abandoned or unoccupied. That is what a crisis of unoccupancy looks like.

HSTDriver 16.02.2013 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk (Post 1775042)
As I said, hardly any.

A lot of those will be empty for good reason, because they are being refurbished, rebuilt, are unfit for human habitation or belong to people who travel a lot. Others will be on the market (after deaths, etc) and nobody wants to buy them.

80,000 homes is going to be appx 2% of the housing stock in a city of 8 million. Which means 98% of the homes in London are permanently occupied. Which hardly suggests a crisis of empty houses. It seems quite reasonable to me that 1 in 50 properties might be legitimately between owners, going through inheritance, on the market with a deceased owner, being refurbished, have been repossessed, belong to people who travel, etc.

One of those cases surely when a big number sounds impressive, until it is examined in context.

By contrast appx 1 in 7 homes in Detroit is abandoned or unoccupied. That is what a crisis of unoccupancy looks like.

80k as a city isn't that much, no. But what a difference 80k affordable properties to key London service workers would make.

I get well paid so I accept 3 hours commuting a day. I'd not be so interested on a nurses wage

davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk 16.02.2013 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HSTDriver (Post 1775111)
80k as a city isn't that much, no. But what a difference 80k affordable properties to key London service workers would make.

I get well paid so I accept 3 hours commuting a day. I'd not be so interested on a nurses wage

There are always going to be empty properties and for perfectly legitimate reasons.

As for key workers I don't see why they need special housing. If they aren't being paid enough to be able to live within a commutable distance then they need higher London weighting payments. Much easier to administer, less market distortion, would allow people to make their own decisions on how far is too far to travel.

If there was a drought of suitable applicants for key worker jobs the Government would presumably have to consider this. As it is, jobs are being trimmed.


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 06:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.