It is being argued that the public sector cuts will have a disproportionate effect on certain areas of the country where the percentage of public sector workers is the highest.


A bit of a statement of the obvious one would think. But it's not until you see the huge proportion of public sector workers in comparison to their private sector counterparts in certain areas of the country that the impact this will have hits home.

So, it's not just the inability/unwillingness of banks to lend coupled with the average person being unable to save the fortune that is a deposit and the hefty mortgage payments. It is also the government being forced to withdraw money in the form of public sector pay and spending from local economies.

The government believes/hopes/wishes that somehow the private sector will weigh in and take up the slack. But how this can be done in areas such as Oxford, Denbighshire and Cambridge where the public sector take over 40% of jobs is hard to understand. Figures from Zoopla show these percentages.
[table id=2 /]

——————–

Like many I was quite surprised at where some of the areas with the largest number of public sector jobs are located.

At the other end, apart from the City of London at 4% and an average house price of £468,962, even those with the lowest proportion of public sector workers has over 10% of jobs in the public sector.
[table id=3 /]

——————–

So the argument goes that the public purse has provided the gold that has prevented these areas becoming ghost towns. But without the money in the local economy, in reality only the well off can move away. This will not leave ghost towns, it has the potential to leave ghettoes of poor people with little or no hope. And as Dominic Dean points out, by cutting spending and not increasing taxes on the rich, the poorest must always end up being hardest hit.

But these people also eat and buy stuff (or at least they did). They consumed goods imported from other areas of the country. Without this many people in other areas will also begin to suffer.

But housing in areas of little or no money and jobs does not just lose value, it also loses home-owners' investment and interest. They quickly fall into disrepair and the value slide just accelerates. Whole areas can become derelict in a few scant years.

Yes, we may well have 'sink areas' where house prices drop more than in other areas, but they will inevitably drag other areas down with them. No-one will be immune from the decline in house prices over the coming years. It's not a case of if, it's a case of how long and how low.

Comment Here!

comments