Where do you see house prices 2 years from now?

lostinrates

I'm goingto put this caveat at the top; I believe it should be a mother's right to choose to work or not dependant on whats best for them/their family.

However, I don't get the two income argument. Even if both parents stay in fulltime average employment a childcare cost has to come out of that income? So working or not isn't the mother's income going to be smaller? (Obviously typed by someone who has no understanding of the childcare allowances/system).

justpurchased

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm goingto put this caveat at the top; I believe it should be a mother's right to choose to work or not dependant on whats best for them/their family.

However, I don't get the two income argument. Even if both parents stay in fulltime average employment a childcare cost has to come out of that income? So working or not isn't the mother's income going to be smaller? (Obviously typed by someone who has no understanding of the childcare allowances/system).

I think that is when affordability is better than a straight multiple. It takes a lot more into account.

carolt

Absolutely, lostinrates - childcare is expensive, plus the (sad) reality is that few mothers who work 50% hours earn 50% salary; partly because women's work is still generally lower paid than men's, but largely because the kind of jobs that allow for part time work are rarely the better paid ones; not many part-time managers/lawyers etc but lots of part-time shop assistants. It's also hard to go up the career ladder whilst working part-time; even for those lucky enough to stay at the same level, few people actually progress until they return to full-time work.

Not that this is just hard on women; it's also hard on men who want to work part-time and take on childcare responsibilities/have some work/life balance, and, ultimately, on children whose parents often have no option to be there for them, however much they'd like to.

I think there is an untold story out there of heartbreak caused by the last 10 years of property rises; as well as all those hard-working couples who didn't have children at all because they felt they couldn't afford to, there are countless couples who missed out on that precious time with their kids because they needed 2 full incomes to buy one very small poxy house.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

I think there is an untold story out there of heartbreak caused by the last 10 years of property rises; as well as all those hard-working couples who didn't have children at all because they felt they couldn't afford to, there are countless couples who missed out on that precious time with their kids because they needed 2 full incomes to buy one very small poxy house.

We certainly wonder how we will/would afford it and have put off worrying about it 'not happening' because as much as we really would love a baby, and we are not greedy, one would do fine they are expensive creatures. That said, people have children in all economic climates don't they...have birth rates altered significantly during HPI .

carolt

Funny, I thought you were older? don't know why? Getting you confused with another poster?

For goodness' sake - don't let financial worries/concerns stand in your way of having children! Children are beyond any price and I'd rather have mine than be king of any number of castles. Remember, property has cycles, but if the housing price cycle is out of sync with your biological clock, put your biological clock first - you won't get another chance. You can always buy a house at 40 or 50 or 60 - but babies won't wait forever.

Babies are not that expensive, actually - the choosing not to work is, but people make that choice because once they have children they realise that time with them is beyond price.

Hopefully, by the time you have a baby, nice medium sized houses as well as small poxy ones will be easily affordable again for you, and other ordinary hard-working people.

Roll on the crash!

pickles110564

carolt wrote: »

Roll on the crash!

You are such a nice lady!:rolleyes: Wishing more and more misery on hard working people.
I hope you dont behave so bitter and twisted in front of your children, otherwise your cycle of hate will never be broken.
Bring them up to care about others not to wish misery on them, this way our loverly country will become great once more and a more happy and caring society to boot.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Funny, I thought you were older? don't know why? Getting you confused with another poster?

For goodness' sake - don't let financial worries/concerns stand in your way of having children! Children are beyond any price and I'd rather have mine than be king of any number of castles. Remember, property has cycles, but if the housing price cycle is out of sync with your biological clock, put your biological clock first - you won't get another chance. You can always buy a house at 40 or 50 or 60 - but babies won't wait forever.

Babies are not that expensive, actually - the choosing not to work is, but people make that choice because once they have children they realise that time with them is beyond price.

Hopefully, by the time you have a baby, nice medium sized houses as well as small poxy ones will be easily affordable again for you, and other ordinary hard-working people.

Roll on the crash!

DH and I are both 29.;) Both have had more than one career.

OT but Financial issues are not the sole reason behind our babyless state (we are actually not trying but not preventing IYSWIM, and enjoying the process) but my health issues too. We decided from the outset that intervention/treatment was not what we wanted (financially, emotionally, ideologically) and that que sera sera on that front- my health condition is not hereditory but I perhaps irrationally fear the genetics which let me succumb so badly are a risk. Very OT I would adopt but DH is not keen on the idea. I would foster but have been told 'middle class or upper middle class'parents are not ideal as can make the children feel awkward:( just by 'being'. If we did have a baby before commiting to house purchase TBH we could afford a mortgage on a reasonable family home now, but like most parents, it would mean putting other of our dreams aside- as has always and will always be the case, not complainng abou that.

I hope to be godmother to many and own many pets.

Life is a series of tradeoffs.

kingkano

As the question wasnt asked of location I assumed it was my local area, where prices have risen 10% since last year (although the market has now gone quiet again). That is according to Land Registry figures.

I've decided I don't subscribe to Nationwide or Halifax figures. Afterall they are based purely on mortgage completions by those banks only. Many houses in my area change hands as cash sales. I expect much more than 50% of sales don't go through those 2 banks since there was/is so much competition in the mortgage market....

HelpWhereIcan

kingkano wrote: »

As the question wasnt asked of location I assumed it was my local area, where prices have risen 10% since last year (although the market has now gone quiet again). That is according to Land Registry figures.

I've decided I don't subscribe to Nationwide or Halifax figures. Afterall they are based purely on mortgage completions by those banks only. Many houses in my area change hands as cash sales. I expect much more than 50% of sales don't go through those 2 banks since there was/is so much competition in the mortgage market....

I personally only look at the Land Registry figures for those reasons.

Those with the interest in doing some historic comparisons of House Price v Mortgage Advance v Income - and the time to do it - should look at

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/141281.xls

shown nationally and by area 1969 - 2007. There is also a table from 1992 showing by Quarter on the same site.

To me it proves that there is no one answer for the whole of the UK as regions vary, nor is there one answer for 'the average person' as first time buyers and 'former owner occupiers' have different results as well. Also depends on new build or established dwelling.

Based on the 'all dwellings figure' for my area, my rough calculations say that prices will need to fall (nominally) by 20 - 25% to reach the 'historic average' multiple of house price vs income.

Based on what happened in my area 'last time' I would expect most of that (about 15%) in the next 2 years with the remaining (5 - 10%) to come off over the subsequent 4 years (albeit with a mixture of rises and falls over that time)

But I suppose it depends on what happens to wage inflation

GDB2222

lostinrates wrote: »

We certainly wonder how we will/would afford it and have put off worrying about it 'not happening' because as much as we really would love a baby, and we are not greedy, one would do fine they are expensive creatures. .

If you like the idea of the pitter patter of tiny feet, get a dog instead. They are much cheaper, and you get more feet.