I'll preface this with "dhur, 'Murica", but if rent and prices are truly so high that no one can afford them, wouldn't the prices drop when they have no buyers/tenants? We have places like that in the US, too, and if you can't afford it, you just don't live there. I assume it's different there, but can someone explain how so?
No because basically the poorer people get pushed out of the private sector and wealthier people move in, an example in the US is what I have read on Harlem and Brooklyn, how these used to be quite derived but loved areas with a strong community, city developers move in making the area more desirable and causing prices to push the "locals" out. This is extremely prevalent in London in the UK and anywhere commutable.
The UK is also much smaller obviously, so there are less places for people to spread out to and fewer "affluent" areas meaning the affluent areas just grow in prestige and wealth rather than eventually fizzling out if this makes sense.
The hard thing is, like Smokey says in areas that end up becoming more affluent the locals get pushed out, so it becomes an argument of do we have a right to choose where we live or should we be grateful if the council are supplying this and go where we there are homes. We couldn't afford to stay in our home town, not because it was expensive, the opposite in fact, there are barely any jobs so we have located for a better quality of life just as my parents chose to do when I was a child. So I am of the view that people should do what they have to do to improve their quality of life, I don't understand why people wait 10 years for a house in Tower Hamlets of all places, but I guess this is there home...can we say they can't live there?
The problem with council houses for life is that it isn't workable now that the government isn't building houses to replace the ones that were bought or the ones where people have chosen to stay. If the council house for life is to stay more houses need to be built, if not which I think is the case, a fairer system needs to be in place for dishing them out.
My step mother got a 3 bed house being a single mum to 2 kids on a low income, she eventually met my dad, they married and he moved in, he had a decent wage for the area but they kept the house. I am assuming she would have got housing benefit before and subsequently lose this but they were only paying £300 a month, cheaper than the "market" rental. I think once this occurs families should lose the house, or be made to pay full market value IF the money went towards new homes....which I doubt would even happen tbh! They have gone into private rent now to move out of the area.
Seeing the outcry from the extra bedroom thing I don't know how much can change without them committing political suicide. Watching the programme just made me very grateful we don't rely on social housing.
it wasn't untill she and her kids started feeling really unwell and was rushed to hospital it all came to light 
.
