|
kim jong-illin posted:The current problem (the major incident declaration at 9 hospitals) is due to cuts in social care. We can't discharge people quickly because it's getting harder and harder to put care packages in place or place them somewhere if their current accommodation isn't suitable. With more people presenting to A&E who need to be admitted, this means they have to stay on an A&E trolley or bed while waiting for a ward bed to become available. As a result, there's no capacity to see new patients in A&E so they have to wait, and therefore breech the 4 hour time, until there's space to see them. Another part of the problem is the cuts in hospital beds. The efficiency mantra is length of stay. For most surgery this has decreased greatly- get them in do their operation then chuck them out. So the amount of hospital beds was cut. The problem comes when emergency admissions start to rise. As happens most winters. Emergency admissions tend, by their nature to have a longer length of stay and can be difficult to chuck out quickly, as Mr Illin described. The real solution is- do we start to treat the healthcare career as a seasonal thing? I'd be quite happy to spend the dark winter months granny grappling and fixing their broken neck of femurs if I could stop being a nurse in the spring and then become a postman. That would suit me down to the ground. Especially if they gave me a bicycle.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
gently caress that, we've got to get over the idea that money should only be given to someone in exchange for their labour. Every facility employed to winter capacity levels but a summer vacation rotation which allows the excess staff to rotate out and close down winter wards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
namesake posted:gently caress that, we've got to get over the idea that money should only be given to someone in exchange for their labour. Every facility employed to winter capacity levels but a summer vacation rotation which allows the excess staff to rotate out and close down winter wards. Are you suggesting we just throw money at the NHS for them to go on holiday?! What are you some sort of immigrant healthcare tourist? Possibly summer time could devote spare hospital staff and space to training?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
The super TL,DR of why rent controls are bad is that they reduce the supply and quality of rental housing (or equivalently, the incentive to build more to meet high demand), reduce the incentive to maintain rented housing well, reduce people's mobility, and create all kinds of new problems such as black markets. For the hows and whys, listen to this 11 minute mini lecture from the Khan academy or look up pretty much any introductory microeconomics textbook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
namesake posted:gently caress that, we've got to get over the idea that money should only be given to someone in exchange for their labour. Basic Income funded in part by a progressive land value tax. (Or a progressive land value tax on everything except primary residences below a certain value.) One of the major worries about Basic Income is that landlords would just jack up rents in order to extract as much as possible out of the recipients, leaving the people dependent on it as their only income in as bad a situation as they were before. But the value of rental real estate is highly dependent on how much rent can be extracted from it over a period of time as a percentage of the initial capital investment (using buy-to-let investment logic) which would thus increase the tax levied on it over a curve. That should see rents reach an equilibrium in the same way as the 'levy a charge on each pound above market rate' method mentioned above.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:Subletting is usually specifically banned in tenancy agreements for very obvious reasons (landlord can't vet the tenant, subtenant can gently caress the place up and it's hard to get them for it, etc). That happens everytime someone moves out though, I've lived in at least 3 shared places where someone I knew stayed behind and they jacked the room price up 5/10%. I'll give my multi-millionaire landlady one grace, she's never increased the rent in the 3 years we've been in this 1 bed shoebox, but I guarantee it'll go from ~£1050 to £1200 pm once we find somewhere bigger. Also, seriousgaylord posted:It just leads to situations of sub lets that are unregulated. If people will pay £900 a week to live on that street now, capping the rent to £600 just means that tenant sub lets if for £900 and goes to live somewhere else for £600 and makes loads of money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The super TL,DR of why rent controls are bad is that they reduce the supply and quality of rental housing (or equivalently, the incentive to build more to meet high demand), reduce the incentive to maintain rented housing well, reduce people's mobility, and create all kinds of new problems such as black markets. Yes, that Rachmanism might be preferable. My solution is to decriminalise and encourage squatting to such an extent that wealthy people get scared again. That would sort the property owners out, and at the same time drive down property prices. Once word got round in Dubai that your investment had been squatted and their was gently caress all you could about it- well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The super TL,DR of why rent controls are bad is that they reduce the supply and quality of rental housing (or equivalently, the incentive to build more to meet high demand), reduce the incentive to maintain rented housing well, reduce people's mobility, and create all kinds of new problems such as black markets. Right now we have the stagflation of housing with tons of illegal sublets and high rents in desirable areas and a general housing shortage. Literally anything to encourage buy to let landlords to sell off their properties (which investor types and those relying on it for income would do) would probably not make things much worse because the number of houses getting torn down after being sold is probably tiny. Market forces have been shown over the last few decades (and much of history before that) to not provide housing properly and that isn't going to change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This is also a possible solution to the earlier rent control chat. I might be getting the wrong end of the stick but wouldn't the way tax works mean that the stable equilibrium of that system would be the government paying out basic income, which landlords then claim in rent, which the government then taxes the majority of back off the landlords, thus spending a lot of money on basic income infrastructure, making landlords slightly richer, and not doing a great deal for the tenants?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Goldskull posted:This wins some kind of prize for stupid. No, its actually pretty well put forward in microeconomics. I thought it was stupid the first time I saw it argued too, but yes, it really does lead to that. Not many, but enough that it becomes a real problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
General China posted:My solution is to decriminalise and encourage squatting to such an extent that wealthy people get scared again. This unironically
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Geokinesis posted:You realise you can refuse the disposition right? I have previously had diabetic ketoacidosis after a bout of flu, so when someone says I need to go into hospital for observation of my condition I loving well do it without question because I do not find vomiting blood by the half pint to be especially entertaining. However, had I spoken to a doctor and been told to do what I was doing plus monitor my ketone levels and report immediately to A&E if they went to significant levels for any length of time (e.g. above 0.5 for more than six hours), it would have been one appointment less because my levels never got that bad for that long.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The super TL,DR of why rent controls are bad is that they reduce the supply and quality of rental housing (or equivalently, the incentive to build more to meet high demand), reduce the incentive to maintain rented housing well, reduce people's mobility, and create all kinds of new problems such as black markets. This video does demonstrate the flaws in trying to force a private rental market to provide housing. The obvious solution being to aggressively reduce the value of properties as speculation vehicles while beginning a massive house-building programme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:This I was not being ironic. There was a massive housing shortage at the end of ww2. Squatting was a practical response to this. It happened on a huge scale, sadly forgotten nowadays. General China fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Yep, rent controls would prevent the free market from investing in house building in London, where there's tons of space for new houses. lol read your introduction to economics textbooks guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
There was a huge squatting movement involving ex-servicemen and their families following World War II. In Brighton, Harry Cowley and the Vigilantes installed families in empty properties and all around the country, in London suburbs and villages such as Chalfont St Giles families occupied derelict camps and in some cases stayed there until the mid-1950s.[12] As word spread, more and more people squatted until there were an estimated 45,000 in total.[13] On 10 October, Aneurin Bevan reported to the House of Commons that 1,038 camps in England and Wales were occupied by 39,535 people.[14] Whilst the Government prevaricated, there was considerable public support for the squatters, since they were perceived as honest people simply taking action to house themselves. Clementine Churchill, wife of the ex-Prime Minister, commented in August 1946: "These people are referred to by the ungraceful term 'squatters', and I wish the press would not use this word about respectable citizens whose only desire is to have a home."[14] On September 8, 1946, 1,500 people squatted flats in Kensington, Pimlico and St.Johns Wood. This action, termed the 'Great Sunday Squat' garnered much media attention and resulted five of the leaders being arrested for 'conspiring to incite and direct trespass.' The squatters left the apartments but did receive temporary accommodation. A sympathetic judge merely bound the squatters over to good behaviour.[14]
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
and what happens when you run out of buildings to squat but still have more people wanting to live in the city than there are homes for them to live in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:and what happens when you run out of buildings to squat but still have more people wanting to live in the city than there are homes for them to live in? there are still plenty of empty buildings to squat in every town in the UK what happens then is- people like you have to work for a living doing real manual labour I'm imagining a year zero for people like you, pol pot style
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
there are not in fact a whole lot of empty habitable buildings in places where people want to live. markets are good about things like that!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I might be getting the wrong end of the stick but wouldn't the way tax works mean that the stable equilibrium of that system would be the government paying out basic income, which landlords then claim in rent, which the government then taxes the majority of back off the landlords, thus spending a lot of money on basic income infrastructure, making landlords slightly richer, and not doing a great deal for the tenants? It's not the ideal of an economy of all-for-all where usable land is commonly owned, but realistically Basic Income and property taxation have a greater chance of being passed in the short term than that. e: Cannot structure sentence good. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Only if that were the only tax in place, Georgist style, and the landlord's income wasn't also taxable. It's about the only system I can think of that would allow Basic Income without it all being siphoned away by the already wealthy (as tends to happen with everything anyway) and the only way to tax land monopolists without it turning into a "government trying to tax away your home!" media fuckfest now that half the country seems to have bought into the idea of housing being some kind of uncrashable investment. It would at least create stronger negative incentives against rent-seeking. I'm having a hard time imagining an agreeable tax system whereby increasing your revenue as a landlord would decrease your income, which would seem to be what would be required in order for the system to not stabilise as suggested. Edit: So obviously the answer is nationalisation. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
General China posted:Yes, that Rachmanism might be preferable. Also non-wealth people who've moved into a new house and can't sell their old one because squatters have moved in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
pisshead posted:Also non-wealth people who've moved into a new house and can't sell their old one because squatters have moved in. if you buy a new house without selling your old one I think you qualify as wealthy. edit/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcawnRIyeok
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
namesake posted:
Housing supply is not controlled by market forces but by the planning system. If you could build wherever you want with no nimbyism and no councils putting ten thousand politically-motivated restrictions on you, there wouldn't be such a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:if you buy a new house without selling your old one I think you qualify as wealthy. Maybe if you use the Guardian definition of wealthy which is anyone who doesn't go to food banks and live in a gutter. I'm pretty sure most people need to secure a new house before they can sell the old one, else they end up homeless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
pisshead posted:Maybe if you use the Guardian definition of wealthy which is anyone who doesn't go to food banks and live in a gutter. I'm pretty sure most people need to secure a new house before they can sell the old one, else they end up homeless. That's not what he meant and you know this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Apparently yesterday was "fat cat tuesday" because it took this long into the year for the average FTSE 100 executive to earn a year's worth of national average wage. If they're fat now think how fat they'll be by year end!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:Apparently yesterday was "fat cat tuesday" because it took this long into the year for the average FTSE 100 executive to earn a year's worth of national average wage. Not only that but those figures are based on their earning per hour if they worked 12 hours a day including 3 of every 4 weekends and only took 10 days holiday a year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
And people wondered why LemonDrizzle got his avatar 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
pisshead posted:Maybe if you use the Guardian definition of wealthy which is anyone who doesn't go to food banks and live in a gutter. I'm pretty sure most people need to secure a new house before they can sell the old one, else they end up homeless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
pisshead posted:Housing supply is not controlled by market forces but by the planning system. If you could build wherever you want with no nimbyism and no councils putting ten thousand politically-motivated restrictions on you, there wouldn't be such a problem. Is this the libertarian argument that markets suddenly spiral into tyranny and failure as soon as the government sets any limit whatsoever or do you have an actual example of good planning regulations in contrast to now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:And people wondered why LemonDrizzle got his avatar He may be a neo liberal shithead but he is our neo liberal shithead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:Subletting is usually specifically banned in tenancy agreements for very obvious reasons (landlord can't vet the tenant, subtenant can gently caress the place up and it's hard to get them for it, etc). < 20% of people rent privately. It's not necessarily a good political idea to gun for a youthful demographic that may or may not vote, compared to one that has money and can use it (landlords).
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:< 20% of people rent privately. It's not necessarily a good political idea to gun for a youthful demographic that may or may not vote, compared to one that has money and can use it (landlords). the previous page posted:A combined total of only 6.8 per cent of the public told the pollsters they were either “somewhat” or “strongly” against rent control. Maybe, just maybe, and I'm spitballing here, but maybe people also vote on issues that don't directly affect them? It's almost as if they're not rational actors; I understand why that could be a troubling notion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:Maybe, just maybe, and I'm spitballing here, but maybe people also vote on issues that don't directly affect them? home-owning parents who support rent controls that'll benefit their children aren't neccesarily thinking irrationally. even if they're also landlords whose profitibility could be advesrly affected by rent controls. (this isn't just a hypothetical, these people exist)
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
notaspy posted:He may be a neo liberal shithead but he is our neo liberal shithead. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
As a second generation immigrant I'm really starting to feel like I don't have a country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
namesake posted:Right now we have the stagflation of housing with tons of illegal sublets and high rents in desirable areas and a general housing shortage. Literally anything to encourage buy to let landlords to sell off their properties (which investor types and those relying on it for income would do) would probably not make things much worse because the number of houses getting torn down after being sold is probably tiny. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Tangential to the talk about buy to let landlords, over the past couple of years I've seen rumblings about hedge funds buying up considerable numbers of properties to rent out in the US. Could this start happening in the UK, especially if the bubble bursts? Is this a portent of private rental properties being consolidated into empires owned by a small number of people or organisations?LemonDrizzle posted:You need to either get more homes built somewhere or make it attractive for the y people to go live somewhere else in the country. Getting rid of right to buy would at least help with this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Cerv posted:home-owning parents who support rent controls that'll benefit their children aren't neccesarily thinking irrationally. I think it's one of the things they test for before they let you join the Conservatives now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 12:20
|
|