I'm not so sure.

The UK, for example, has significantly more empty homes than homeless people[0]. I don't know the physical distribution of these properties, so purely hypothetically: if the empty properties are in deprived areas of the country that don't have jobs, they might as well be in Montserrat for all the impact they have on the UK housing market in the places with jobs.

[0] exact number depends how you count, this link is obviously trying to do politics so pinch of salt, but it still illustrates the different measures: https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/news/national-empty-homes...

The UK has very few empty homes compared to peer countries, though. We have very little spare capacity, we need to actually build more homes.

Are you suggesting that the reason that 250,000 houses that have been empty for 6 months isn't enough for 250,000 homeless people, is something other than the houses being nowhere near the job opportunities?

The housing problem in the UK is so much more than simply homelessness.

Bad location, shit quality, low density, small, expensive, leasehold, nothing being built...

It won't. Those homes will just go in fewer hands so the rich will be richer the poor will be poorer.

We've already had a low birthrates for a while and property prices (where the jobs are) have gone nowhere but up, outpacing Inflation, wage growth and sometimes even the stock market.

Nobody cares the desolate countryside homes are sitting empty because there are no jobs there.

It's a solution that will have a 30-40 year delayed positive effect, meanwhile making people miserable.