House Prices up 4.2% in 3 months Nationwide

wolvoman

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So the mean figure is the agreed figure to use? Not the median, i.e. what most people earn?

Am I right here? As it will stop a lot of confusion in the future.

I always thought it was much better to look at what the majority earn, therefore can afford, rather than what a select number earn and what they can afford, but if this is the reason for a lot of confusion leading to arguments about house prices, i'd rather know which is the "acceptable method". May need a new thread or a poll though!

All the house prices indices measure in mean, therefore the salary measures should be means to, otherwise you are not comparing like with like.

I'd be willing to bet that the median house price is quite a lot lower than the mean.

Graham_Devon

wolvoman wrote: »

All the house prices indices measure in mean, therefore the salary measures should be means to, otherwise you are not comparing like with like.

I'd be willing to bet that the median house price is quite a lot lower than the mean.

Not all the price indices do. Only the major national ones, as they are linked to national statistics. I asked on another thread for someone to tell me what median house prices actually are, but no one was willing to tell me.

mewbie_2

I'm going to go slightly off on one here so apologies. If this level of garbage is what the loser bulls put out at this stage in the cycle, thank heavens we are nowhere near a recovery. It is total obsfuscation, designed to confuse and muddy the picture. I have seen enough graphs, enough waffle - the fact is, the sensible economic analysis is - much further to go in terms of price drops.

Being in here sometimes is like being sat next to the pub bore, who is determined to tell you a story that both you and he know to be patently untrue. It's a relief when someone with a bit of nous posts something, based on intelligent understanding rather than total drivel.

rant over.

Dan:_4

mewbie wrote: »

I'm going to go slightly off on one here so apologies. If this level of garbage is what the loser bulls put out at this stage in the cycle, thank heavens we are nowhere near a recovery. It is total obsfuscation, designed to confuse and muddy the picture. I have seen enough graphs, enough waffle - the fact is, the sensible economic analysis is - much further to go in terms of price drops.

Being in here sometimes is like being sat next to the pub bore, who is determined to tell you a story that both you and he know to be patently untrue. It's a relief when someone with a bit of nous posts something, based on intelligent understanding rather than total drivel.

rant over.

Mewbs - you can tell from the tone of your recent posts that your getting nervious, 20% down from peak is a lot - why are you not happy with this?

Snooze

Dan: wrote: »

Mewbs - you can tell from the tone of your recent posts that your getting nervious, 20% down from peak is a lot - why are you not happy with this?

I keep having to double check that the username actually says 'mewbie' and not 'dopester' whenever mewbie posts stuff these days. Dunno !!!!!! is up with him lately, he's usually quite ..... you know, normal?

R

Snooze

Snooze wrote: »

I keep having to double check that the username actually says 'mewbie' and not 'dopester' whenever mewbie posts stuff these days. Dunno !!!!!! is up with him lately, he's usually quite ..... you know, normal?

R

Oops, I meant Wookster not dopester.

R

chucky

Dan: wrote: »

Mewbs - you can tell from the tone of your recent posts that your getting nervious, 20% down from peak is a lot - why are you not happy with this?

he's Mr Angry at the moment - must be the denial stage

JonnyBravo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So the mean figure is the agreed figure to use? Not the median, i.e. what most people earn?

Am I right here? As it will stop a lot of confusion in the future.

I always thought it was much better to look at what the majority earn, therefore can afford, rather than what a select number earn and what they can afford, but if this is the reason for a lot of confusion leading to arguments about house prices, i'd rather know which is the "acceptable method". May need a new thread or a poll though!

No.

The mode is what most people earn. Another type of average.

I'm not telling you which to use or not. There are many averages and they tell you different things. Depends what you want to know. There is nothing to fear from the data, it is what it is.
Why do so many people always try and deny the data rather than think about its implications.

JonnyBravo

mewbie wrote: »

I'm going to go slightly off on one here so apologies. If this level of garbage is what the loser bulls put out at this stage in the cycle, thank heavens we are nowhere near a recovery. It is total obsfuscation, designed to confuse and muddy the picture. I have seen enough graphs, enough waffle - the fact is, the sensible economic analysis is - much further to go in terms of price drops.

Being in here sometimes is like being sat next to the pub bore, who is determined to tell you a story that both you and he know to be patently untrue. It's a relief when someone with a bit of nous posts something, based on intelligent understanding rather than total drivel.

rant over.

I'm not sure if you're aiming this at me or not?

Garbage?

Why is it garbage?


I was trying to clarify data..... I'm sorry it's not to your taste.

<bites tongue

chucky

JonnyBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're aiming this at me or not?

Garbage?

Why is it garbage?


I was trying to clarify data..... I'm sorry it's not to your taste.

<bites tongue

probably me Johny - he doesn't like people posting stuff up that you can discuss or put forward to be discussed that's in any way positive.

not sure what's wrong with him Mr Bravo - something's happened to him where he's trying to be that big bad tough bear.

he should really stick to the funnies. he was better at that than being Mr Angry :cool: