Housing and social mobility

 
The Policy Centre Jersey has begun a programme of work on social mobility. The programme will cover a number of subjects including education, immigration, employment and housing
 

Here are some reflections

I was persuaded by the argument that adding money to the housing system (rather than more houses) simply raises the price and although well intended the £10m funding from government to help up to 60 of the 600+ seeking affordable housing is unlikely to amount to much, except of course for the 60 who will be lucky enough to receive help.

Apparently housing has increased in price 40% since 2000 and is 25% more expensive than even parts of London. Both a great investment and an impossible prospect depending on whether you are a have or have not.

I was less persuaded by the argument that more houses means less poverty. I appreciate that the cost of housing is a major factor in people's household expense and that relative wealth can be improved by lower costs but I am not sure of the extend to which social mobility is fixed by an abundance of houses. Even in countries that have an over supply houses there is still poverty and issues of social mobility.

One example of such a scenario is in Spain, where after the 2008 financial crisis, there were many unfinished and unoccupied houses due to the housing market crash. Similarly, some areas in the United States, particularly those with declining populations, have experienced an oversupply of housing.

One idea that did provoke is that perhaps housing, like schools, roads, hospitals, should be regarded as social infrastructure rather than person possession. Sadly this idea did not seem to gain traction in the discussion, but I think is exactly the type of provokative snd creative thinking that is necessary than seeking always to resolve the problem with the tools that created it, those being money and population choices.

I suspect the price of housing is not solely market driven albeit that the supply undoubtedly is. The cost-input of affordable housing is dependant upon many factors, not solely on the competitive pressures of supply and demand. It was telling that the recent £10m injection was designed to "stimulate transactions" (lawyers fees, estate agents, stamp duty) all of which add to the cost and perhaps changes here may be useful.

I'm neither and accountant or economist so was flummoxed by the discussion of income inequality. The assertion was made that reducing GP fees has the same net economic effect as increasing income. That's like saying a free ticket to the opera can be used to pay the rent. I know given the choice of cash and choice or a discount for the doctor I'd opt for the former over the latter.

Perhaps there are too many wealthy people making these decisions from the captains deck? Certainly the charities that welcomed the decision for the middle class were also at pains to note that the reduction to £29 to £44 for a visit is still a sizeable sum for many who "live in the cargo-hold" of Jersey.

I was also struck by the idea that social mobility means everyone advances and nobody loses, and specifically the claim that it should not be a threat to wealth or power.

To my mind meritocracy is a system in which individuals are selected and advanced based on their abilities, talents, and achievements, rather than on their class, heritage, or wealth. In a meritocratic society or organization, power and position are assigned based on individual merit, which usually includes education, competency, experience, and demonstrated abilities. Surely social mobility means the talentless, stupid or idle should give-up power and opportunity, albeit the triumph of Trump (and many other examples) shows that this - sadly - is not the case.

Overall. for me, the Policy Centre event was really interesting and the debate educational. The real challenge however will be to come up with solutions that have eluded all the clever and hard working people that have preceded this debate, with perhaps greater participation from the minority of votes who are the majority of those affected.


Chatham House Rule

When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.
    
Read more
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/policy-centre-jersey_policy-jerseyci-socialmobility-activity-7113549753816133633-I8M_?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

References

Doctors (GPs) fees, prescriptions and health cards
https://www.gov.je/Health/DoctorDentist/Doctors/pages/healthcard.aspx