The start of seismic change?

[Jozhua]

Bear with me while I muse!

Look back in modern history every 40-50 years something happens which leads to huge changes. WW1 began in the early 1900s and many would argue only took a pause in 1918 before being continued in 1939.

There was then a period from 1945 until the late 1970s where the Country rebuilt. The societal structure developed with NHS, welfare state, 'homes for heroes' etc. People became wealthy by helping Britain rebuild.

Then in 1979 the next change. Nationalised industries sold off, huge change to a place where opportunity for all and free enterprise were the order of the day. Look after number 1 and tread on anyone to achieve your aims, generating wealth was the only game in town. "No such thing as society" is now a catchphrase, despite being only 5 lines of a much longer speech explaining what it meant, it now sums up a period of history.

This has continued for another period of 40 years, but seismic change could well be in sight again due to the coronavirus.

People who only ten years ago probably welcomed and championed the social welfare changes as they were working hard and paying taxes and they would never be a 'scrounger' or 'poor' so the rules wouldn't apply to them. The self employed who 'got on their bike' and were looking after themselves and sat on the 'I'm alright Jack' bus weren't affected.

These significant groups are now quickly realising the safety net is full of holes larger than the person they are designed to catch. They are also realising benefit rules apply to everyone and its a terrible place to be.

Companies such as Wetherspoons, Sports Direct, Next, Pretty Little Thing putting staff in potential danger all for profit. Staff too scared to speak out or call in sick for fear of losing jobs, no representation to ensure their voices are heard.

The UK no longer has a social contract (and a Google search for "UK broken social contract" shows this has been a concern since the last financial crash). The tax bill arrives, the tax bill gets paid, but Government's side of the bargain is never properly spelled out.

The Chancellor hinted today that he has in a few short weeks in the job realised this does appear to be the case. It is possible to pay lots of your income into the pot, not a lot, pay nothing, pay in and get far more out due to how tax laws work. Yet when it all goes belly up everyone wants the same amount out, regardless of how much they have put in.

With this (and Brexit) far from concluded I can see this whole episode being another significant mark in the sand where Government policies changed markedly, hopefully for the good of all once again.

This last couple of days I’ve been mulling over the potential outcomes of all of this and what it might mean for the world in the long term.
Obviously we have no idea of what will actually happen here but I’d be interested in your thoughts on these couple of scenarios:

1) Due to the mismanagement by Trump the Coronavirus crisis in America snowballs and causes a huge amount fatalities (potentially 1 or 2 million) and the electorate finally sees him for what he is - an incompetent buffoon that’s completely out of his depth.
The USA economy therefore tanks, and China overtakes them as the major economy of the world due to the way that they’ve been able to clamp down on the population and move quickly to slow and stop the spread of COVID-19 because of the way they’re set up compared to Western democracy’s...

2) In Europe Germany find themselves propping up all of the Eurozone on their own due to their economy being by far the strongest, and all of the other main players - Italy, Spain (and quite possibly France by the looks of things) seeing their economy’s disappear down the toilet leaving the EU in a huge amount of trouble that they may never be able to find a way out of, meaning that we’re actually in a far better position having walked away from Europe than we ever thought we would be (I didn’t vote leave by the way, I’m just interested in all of this)...

These are just a few thoughts. Could this happen or am I way off the mark?
I’d be very interested in what you all think because I haven’t got a clue to be honest!

1) Trump isn't approaching this one well, he has some valid points, but they're vastly overshadowed by his generally poor decision making. Fortunately things like quarantines are down to individual states. One thing I will give him credit for is closing the borders in a reasonably timely fashion. I think the US approach will be fragmented and vary by state. The spread and containment will be difficult to gauge on a national level, as testing is still quite poor and people are not incentivised to get tested or go to hospital due to them burdening the cost.

2) The problem is with the Eurozone is it is too big and encompasses different countries with economies and politics that are too different. Usually when a country hits hard times, the value of their currency will lower, making goods and services they sell cheaper for foreigners, creating a sort of balancing effect. The Euro works well for giving a relatively stable currency to some of the smaller countries though. I honestly wonder though if some countries would be better off outside the Eurozone. Greece strikes me as one of these cases.

I don't think China will necessarily overtake the US though, if they release the quarantine while still seeing continued cases, there is no reason why the spread couldn't just balloon again. Now they're dealing with imported cases, which isn't necessarily limited to one city or province.

Rubbish! The Spanish flu in 1918 killed fifty million people and hardly anyone is even aware of it in 2020!

To be fair, it was flanked by two world wars. In fact, the movement of people during WW1 was a catalyst for its spread. Just like globalisation and massive amounts of airline travel was a catalyst in 2020.

I don't think many people have seen an event on this scale in living memory. We hear of distant wars and humanitarian disasters, but generally nothing comes to our doorstep. If nothing else, hopefully people start to take the issue of disease and building a strong global health system seriously and perhaps realise war is no longer our biggest threat.

 

[Typhoon]

Somebody quoted an eyewitness account of it a couple of days that showed some very interesting comparisons. Unfortunately I can’t find it now though.

These probably are not what you were referring to but are, none the less, interesting.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200302-coronavirus-what-can-we-learn-from-the-spanish-flu https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3csyx3d. Parts of the latter are not for the faint-hearted.

 

[yorksrob]

I hope that one thing that changes after this crisis is that we learn to rely less on foreign manufacturers for vital equipment and supplies. Having to scrabble around in international markets for such things at times of crisis seems problematic.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Somebody quoted an eyewitness account of it a couple of days that showed some very interesting comparisons. Unfortunately I can’t find it now though.

The account I've seen is from a Facebook page called NowThis: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3555528854478579&id=908009612563863. The guy was interviewed fifteen years or so ago I think.

 

[Mogster]

1) Trump isn't approaching this one well, he has some valid points, but they're vastly overshadowed by his generally poor decision making. Fortunately things like quarantines are down to individual states. One thing I will give him credit for is closing the borders in a reasonably timely fashion. I think the US approach will be fragmented and vary by state. The spread and containment will be difficult to gauge on a national level, as testing is still quite poor and people are not incentivised to get tested or go to hospital due to them burdening the cost.

Closing borders is a popularist thing for politicians to do but there’s no evidence it works.

It might slow disease spread initially but people always find a way in and then have an incentive as an “illegal” not to report their illness and avoid treatment. It’s better to stress that people shouldn’t be travelling if they’re sick and having staff reject anyone at the point of departure who’s obviously showing symptoms. Then tell them to self isolate for a period and be aware of symptoms. I really believe countries need to work together on this and closing borders just creates a turtle mentality. 70% of ventilators are made by only 7 countries, Germany is already reported to be hoarding them like medical bog roll, a closed borders mentality could lead to a dangerous shortage of medical supplies in some countries while others have an extreme excess.

Use those resources you’d have expended on border patrols to combat and contain the disease within your own country. I don’t expect this stuff to stop though, “keep them out” appeals to too many politically.

 

[Mogster]

These probably are not what you were referring to but are, none the less, interesting.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200302-coronavirus-what-can-we-learn-from-the-spanish-flu https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3csyx3d. Parts of the latter are not for the faint-hearted.

The BBC produced an interesting drama documentary about Spanish Flu a few months ago. “The flu the killed 50 million” it was narrated by Christopher Ecclestone. The BBC don’t seem to be hosting it on iPlayer currently unfortunately but it can be found on the net.

Edit......

back on iPlayer it seems.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0blmn5l

Christopher Eccleston narrates a docudrama about the 1918 flu pandemic, which killed more than 50 million people. Told using powerful personal testimony.

Just be aware it is quite hard hitting and so may not be an easy watch in the current circumstances.

 

[Bantamzen]

Will it really be that catastrophic?
A lot of people will be on reduced income. But quite a few will have been on overtime and more shifts, and a great number will have been on the same money but drastically reduced spending.
When the restrictions lift there should be a mini boom of shopping, eating/drinking out, and staycations/days out. The businesses that survive the drought should get a good chunk of the missing money back, with little need for discounting.
With international travel probably still restricted and higher risk a much higher percentage of holiday money will be spent in the UK, thrown at trying to squeeze breaks in before winter comes.
And there will be a sad boost for UK manufacturers as imports are restricted by the virus cutting a horrific swathe through the developing world.

International travel will likely bounce back far quicker than you might imagine, especially to countries whose economies rely on tourism. Many travel companies are encouraging people with bookings that are being cancelled to re-book later in the year.

Closer to home though people are already losing jobs, many businesses will fail and generally the amount of money swilling about in the economy will be greatly reduced on what it would have been.

I hope that one thing that changes after this crisis is that we learn to rely less on foreign manufacturers for vital equipment and supplies. Having to scrabble around in international markets for such things at times of crisis seems problematic.

That ship literally sailed a long time ago. We simply don't have the industrial base to be self-sufficient, and in the inevitable post-covid recession, we will not be able to compete with other countries in trying to re-build one.

 

[Meerkat]

That ship literally sailed a long time ago. We simply don't have the industrial base to be self-sufficient, and in the inevitable post-covid recession, we will not be able to compete with other countries in trying to re-build one.

We have loads of SMEs that are of the limited scale you need for maintaining sovereign stocks of PPE, ventilators etc, and providing parts for assembly plants.
You don’t need loads of workers, just clever engineers (which we still have) and automated factories.

 

[Panupreset]

I think one thing that might happen after this is that ‘key worker’ jobs become more sought after. People who are in non key worker positions might not be keen to remain in those jobs in case of a further or similar outbreak.

Rather like banks having to pay into the FSCS, all business may have to pay into some sort of national contingency fund.

Reduced NI contributions for the self employed will end pretty quick.

I have always felt since the credit crunch crash that it has never been realised that huge numbers of people struggle to keep themselves financially above water even in periods of economic growth. People do not have rainy day funds anymore.

The only possible winner out of this? The environment?

 

[takno]

The only possible winner out of this? The environment?

Certainly the local environment in cities has cleaner air, but that kind of pollution bounces back within a week. The fall in aviation is obviously helpful in carbon terms, but again, the numbers of flights will likely bounce back quite quickly. A large proportion of manufacturing is still happening, creating emissions, and it's long been assumed that home-working is a net pollutant because the cost of heating or air-conditioning homes all day every day is much higher than packing everybody into nice tight boxes like offices and schools (most of which are likely to still be running the climate control anyway).

Meanwhile one of the things the Polish government is doing is to start demanding a complete halt to carbon-offsetting schemes that were essentially agreed and factored in years ago, but which they've never wanted to comply with.

 

[paddington]

Many of the changes postulated here are plausible and will have long-lasting effects. I fear that one consequence will be that some areas of the UK, and some areas of other countries, will become even more hostile to outsiders, particularly those people who may appear to be associated with the origins of these changes (by which I mean East Asians).

 

[Jozhua]

Closing borders is a popularist thing for politicians to do but there’s no evidence it works.

It might slow disease spread initially but people always find a way in and then have an incentive as an “illegal” not to report their illness and avoid treatment. It’s better to stress that people shouldn’t be travelling if they’re sick and having staff reject anyone at the point of departure who’s obviously showing symptoms. Then tell them to self isolate for a period and be aware of symptoms. I really believe countries need to work together on this and closing borders just creates a turtle mentality. 70% of ventilators are made by only 7 countries, Germany is already reported to be hoarding them like medical bog roll, a closed borders mentality could lead to a dangerous shortage of medical supplies in some countries while others have an extreme excess.

Use those resources you’d have expended on border patrols to combat and contain the disease within your own country. I don’t expect this stuff to stop though, “keep them out” appeals to too many politically.

There's no evidence it works in relation to most other things, but in this case, quarantining and social distancing, closing borders is the right thing to do. Or enforcing 2 week quarantine on new arrivals.

Ultimately, most people who are here "illegally" have done so by flying in as normal and overstaying their visa. Almost everyone comes through some kind of point of entry. The only time we saw significant numbers of people mitigating this was in the height of the refugee crisis, even then, numbers are relatively low.

Countries should be working together, but at the end of the day we need to physically distance ourselves. We also don't want to import cases from countries with their infection not under control. The outbreak in Italy seems like a major factor that contributed to what we see in the UK now.

I think one thing that might happen after this is that ‘key worker’ jobs become more sought after. People who are in non key worker positions might not be keen to remain in those jobs in case of a further or similar outbreak.

Rather like banks having to pay into the FSCS, all business may have to pay into some sort of national contingency fund.

Reduced NI contributions for the self employed will end pretty quick.

I have always felt since the credit crunch crash that it has never been realised that huge numbers of people struggle to keep themselves financially above water even in periods of economic growth. People do not have rainy day funds anymore.

The only possible winner out of this? The environment?

No, 'Key Workers' get paid almost nothing and treated like rubbish. But you'll get a clap once in a while so...

I definitely think after 2008 people have struggled to keep their heads above water. Massive GDP figures have hidden this, but there is truth to it. One of the major issues really is housing prices going up so much faster than incomes. But resolving that involves investment...

We'll ignore all the warning signs for climate change, just like we did this. The majority of people learn the importance of preparation, except for politicians.

 

[ainsworth74]

But resolving that involves investment...

As well as potentially tanking the plans of all those who saw houses as an investment which will always (just about) go up. And those that own those houses tend to vote...

 

[Typhoon]

The BBC produced an interesting drama documentary about Spanish Flu a few months ago. “The flu the killed 50 million” it was narrated by Christopher Eccleston. The Back on iPlayer it seems.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0blmn5l
Just be aware it is quite hard hitting and so may not be an easy watch in the current circumstances.

Thanks for that. I'll have a look when I'm in the right frame of mind. From what I've read and heard here is no comparison between it and CORVID-19, and coming fresh on the heels of WW1. Maybe instead of fining those that refuse to keep to the 2m and thinks its effects are being exaggerated, they should be forced to watch the programme?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cheers, I'll have a watch. Being someone who has watched Titanic on a ferry and something with a plane crash in it on a plane (I forget what but I remember being surprised it was shown) it's the sort of morbid thing I'd do anyway

 

[hooverboy]

As well as potentially tanking the plans of all those who saw houses as an investment which will always (just about) go up. And those that own those houses tend to vote...

quite likely.

some real curve balls likely to happen here I think.
the buy to let brigade were already coming under the cosh with changes to S21 lettings, now the government are telling them they can't sell for 3 months...and a lot of folks renting them are on fixed/zero hours contracts, so don't have the job security of the 80% buffer..it's basically told your services are no longer required..end of story.
lots of defaults going to happen

not to mention the "dreaded lurgey" factor of trying to get a sale with a tenant who has contracted the virus!
will a potential buyer be put off and insist on a deep clean before making a (well below market value) offer?

 

[Jozhua]

As well as potentially tanking the plans of all those who saw houses as an investment which will always (just about) go up. And those that own those houses tend to vote...

True, this is why I basically escort all my uni friends to the polls lol. A lot of young people are starting to really pile the pressure on each other to vote, obviously the last few elections haven't seen some kind of crazy 'youthquake', but I think we're more passionate about voting than before.

Houses shouldn't be an investment. Anything that is a basic necessity needed to live shouldn't be able to go up so much in price, many people struggle to afford them. Anyway, likely that won't change much soon.

I think once Boris Johnson comes out of hospital we're going to see a lot more funding for the NHS. I would be surprised if he goes through that and doesn't come out with a different perspective.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Houses shouldn't be an investment. Anything that is a basic necessity needed to live shouldn't be able to go up so much in price, many people struggle to afford them. Anyway, likely that won't change much soon.

The only real way to fix that is a massive building programme, as high prices are a result of a supply vs demand issue. Of course that would be unpopular because it would require shoving houses up on green belt etc.

 

[JonathanH]

The only real way to fix that is a massive building programme, as high prices are a result of a supply vs demand issue. Of course that would be unpopular because it would require shoving houses up on green belt etc.

A reasonably significant wealth tax is another method, or capital gains payments on the increase in house prices, assessed every year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A reasonably significant wealth tax is another method, or capital gains payments on the increase in house prices, assessed every year.

Both of those would discourage investment in houses, causing a shift away from rentals, but it wouldn't solve the issue of there not being enough houses, and as such would not solve the problem.

 

[Meerkat]

The only real way to fix that is a massive building programme, as high prices are a result of a supply vs demand issue. Of course that would be unpopular because it would require shoving houses up on green belt etc.

This is not supported by the research. There is no significant shortage of houses, and building loads of houses actually has very little effect on prices (there are 25m homes in the UK so building is just playing round the edges).
The problem is how much money is chasing the houses. Low interest rates and low share returns have brought investors in who can outbid owner-occupiers.
The way to bring down prices is to get the investors out. How you do this without crashing the market is the tricky bit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The way to bring down prices is to get the investors out. How you do this without crashing the market is the tricky bit.

It also assumes that the private rented sector does not bring benefits - it very much does - it's just a bit too large.

 

[Meerkat]

It also assumes that the private rented sector does not bring benefits - it very much does - it's just a bit too large.

Does it have that many benefits for houses rather than flats?
I would guess most renting is either in flats or at the high end for executives that move about quite a bit. How many people in starter homes move enough to make renting beneficial. They would usually be better off paying their own mortgage rather than someone else’s....

 

[Chester1]

Does it have that many benefits for houses rather than flats?
I would guess most renting is either in flats or at the high end for executives that move about quite a bit. How many people in starter homes move enough to make renting beneficial. They would usually be better off paying their own mortgage rather than someone else’s....

Houses of multiple occupation are useful part of the market but do need to be regulated better. There are plenty of people who rent flats who are not in a position in life to buy e.g. people in their 20s sharing with a friend. Its the scale of private rentals that has caused problems, not their existence. Banning buy to let mortgages and Swiss style (15%) taxes on overseas purchases would make a big difference. Don't forget though that many British landlords are retired and don't have mortgages and the rental income is essentially part of their pension. It would take more than some tax rises to make them sell up and put the money in shares or buy an annuity! Property is a vastly better bet if you have £100,000 pension fund or lump sum (a 66 year old would get about £4000 per year for an annuity with that investment). Even if the profit from renting is lower, the security of bricks and mortar can't be beaten.

Edit:

There are definitely local examples were construction makes a difference to prices. The building of ~5000 flats in Manchester city centre each year, mostly bought by foreign buyers has had a ripple effect and is limiting price and rent rises in other places that suit young professionals. There is only so much a market can rise when its being flooded with capacity year after year.

 

[Meerkat]

Don't forget though that many British landlords are retired and don't have mortgages and the rental income is essentially part of their pension.

Another example of the older generation gaining at the young’s expense, as younger people pay higher housing costs to improve already wealthy pensioners’ lifestyles.

There are definitely local examples were construction makes a difference to prices. The building of ~5000 flats in Manchester city centre each year, mostly bought by foreign buyers has had a ripple effect and is limiting price and rent rises in other places that suit young professionals.

There will be exceptions, but few places where you can add that much capacity. Are you sure it’s 5,000 per year, that sounds bubbletastic!!

 

[hooverboy]

It also assumes that the private rented sector does not bring benefits - it very much does - it's just a bit too large.

it depends what you quantify as a benefit.

having indigenous folks putting off raising families is not a benefit at all.
We have seen the age of the first time buyer rocket over the last few years, as well as the average age of first childbirth.

ask any lady, the most important thing about starting a family is SECURITY.
You just don't have that with the 6 month/12 month tenancy sword of damocles hanging above your head, especially when the landlord is asking for an extra £50 a month every year,and all your bills are going up at the same time.Coupled with the fact you're on a on a crap wage to begin with, you've got a measly 2% pay rise,if that, and just been told by the government they are taking even more out of your take home pay to cover your pension.
Oh,and then council tax up by 4-5% year on year as well.

The situation was a toxic mess to begin with,and has long been overdue a clear-out, which should have happened in 2008.
unfortunately by papering over the cracks,the financial powers that be have only made matters worse,and the re-adjustment even more painful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

it depends what you quantify as a benefit.

Flexibility of the workforce is the main one. Younger people not ready to settle down can find somewhere decent to rent where they can get a job of their choosing/in a city of their choosing rather than having to buy.

The sector is probably too big, but I certainly wanted to rent for the first few years of my career. I didn't want to buy until I was sure of where I wanted to stay.

We need both segments of the market. We need enough rental property with good tenant rights for those who wish to rent, and we need enough sales property for those who wish to buy, of the size they want (typically smaller properties). The only way to have both is to build, including build-for-rent.

having indigenous folks putting off raising families is not a benefit at all.
We have seen the age of the first time buyer rocket over the last few years, as well as the average age of first childbirth.

ask any lady, the most important thing about starting a family is SECURITY.
You just don't have that with the 6 month/12 month tenancy sword of damocles hanging above your head, especially when the landlord is asking for an extra £50 a month every year,and all your bills are going up at the same time.Coupled with the fact you're on a on a crap wage to begin with, you've got a measly 2% pay rise,if that, and just been told by the government they are taking even more out of your take home pay to cover your pension.

There are many, many reasons for people having children later, and housing is not the only one. Many people have children in rented property.

 

[hooverboy]

Flexibility of the workforce is the main one. Younger people not ready to settle down can find somewhere decent to rent where they can get a job of their choosing/in a city of their choosing rather than having to buy.

The sector is probably too big, but I certainly wanted to rent for the first few years of my career. I didn't want to buy until I was sure of where I wanted to stay.



There are many, many reasons for people having children later, and housing is not the only one. Many people have children in rented property.

It's one of the primary reasons, and having a child in such a rental, at least a short tenancy ,is certainly not first preference at all.

Rentals are fine for carefree singletons, and those who really are on their uppers.

(of course the sector is way too big!)

It is due a substantial correction!

Back in the 1990s, I remember the tech shares being the "in thing" for investments, C4 had a programme called "show me the money", and everybody was at it. Then the dotcom crash happened; Sa year or so later the programme was dumped.

Since 2000, we've had endless streams of "show me the money-esque" property programmes. In 2008/9 we should have had a correction and reset the system and dumped the programmes for a new bubble of choice, but that didn't happen.

The housing price figures were massaged to remain positive, liquidity was dumped into the market, and the property propaganda continued.

This time around interest rates are already close to zero, so the ammunition is limited.

Taxes, both direct and indirect are creeping up, and disposable income for a lot of people is stretched to the max this time.

 

[Chester1]

Another example of the older generation gaining at the young’s expense, as younger people pay higher housing costs to improve already wealthy pensioners’ lifestyles.


There will be exceptions, but few places where you can add that much capacity. Are you sure it’s 5,000 per year, that sounds bubbletastic!!

Its been 4000-5000 a year for last three years. Its not (much) of a bubble. There is a tremendous amount of very low density industrial land surrounding the city centre and a housing shortage. The backlash against building flats is mainly from people who resent 20 somethings (or early 30s) living a relatively care free life, without financial or family commitments. They seem to think land of the edge of the city centre should be used for family homes, which would be mad spatial planning. The developers are making payments in lei of social housing to fund projects elsewhere. Other people rent city centre flats too but young professionals are by far the largest contingent.

I will be blunt and ask, do you by any chance have a final or career average employee pension? I do and therefore would not get a property, if I didn't its certainly something I would plan to do on retirement if I was approaching it. One persons lifestyle is another person avoidance of poverty in old age. The average landlord has 2 properties. After costs thats probably somewhere in between £8000-15,000 profit. Combined with a pathetic private sector pension of say £3-4000 per person and the state pension then thats wouldn't make a couple very rich (nor poor). The excess in the system is buy to let mortages and foreign investment. There is always going to be a need for private rentals on a medium term basis for people who are neither ready to buy or suitable for social housing. Plenty of people spend a good chunk of life neither wanting to live with their parents or settle down.

 

[hooverboy]

The excess in the system is buy to let mortages and foreign investment. There is always going to be a need for private rentals on a medium term basis for people who are neither ready to buy or suitable for social housing. Plenty of people spend a good chunk of life neither wanting to live with their parents or settle down.

the excess in the system is/was driven by excess credit and ultra low interest rates.
That's been the driver for the BTL market,it made sense having capital appreciation and yield,but capital appreciation is now close to zero,costs are increasing,and peoples ability to pay the extra is capped due to extra taxation,higher bills and wage supression.

as for foreign investment,that will go in search of higher yields pretty damn quickly,they will think nothing of liquidating a multi million pound portfolio on a whim, they generally have access to market information a lot quicker than joe public,and certainly don't have as much emotional attatchment to the investment as mr and mrs bloggs and their 2 flats..it is treated purely as one asset class, leaving the latter to carry the can as the stampede for the exits quickens.

Property for those guys is purely an asset class,much the same as stocks,commodities or bonds, if they don't perform or underperform they get cut completely or rationalised.
Mr and mrs bloggs will hold on for dear life,sliding down the slippery slope of hope,and then panic sell when they can't pay the bills or the house/flat has lost a significant value,just to add fuel to the fire for the "capitulation" stage

given the current situation,what's the betting that some of the big money hasn't already shifted out of property and into biotech/healthcare?
Even if covid 19 fizzles out,we still have an aging population globally to deal with,which will require pills and potions to keep operating and happy.