This really isn’t sensible:
An influential conservative think tank has called for new housing secretary Michael Gove to support the construction of 250,000 homes for key workers to repay them for frontline work through the pandemic.
The Centre for Policy Studies has proposed the creation of “homes for heroes” as a new housing category, calling for land to be set aside to build 50,000 such properties annually over five years.
Having homes that a speshul for speshul workers reduces the mobility of the workforce. So, a fireman, or nurse, or more likely a politically connected bureaucrat, gets one of these speshul homes. Then a few years later decides to go try something else. Perhaps, say, become a productive member of society.
Do they have to move out of these speshul homes? Which is a drag on the mobility of labour, isn’t it? Or they don’t? Then it’s not homes for key workers, is it?
Yes, this is important. We know that “too high” a level of home ownership increases unemployment. Because there are costs associated with moving, therefore less labour moves to where the work it when there are few to no rentals to move into.
Ah, but these will be rentals you say? But social renting is based upon local authority areas. It’s near impossible to move from social in one area into social in another. That part of the system makes social housing even more of a drag upon employment than home owning.
This is all well known. So why in buggery is it being proposed?
Surely good Tories are over the idea that the peasantry just pick a job at 18 and stay in that little hole, cap doffing, forever?