Halifax +2.6 % MoM

setmefree2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Houses being affordable on normal wages, I guess.

I know it's a bit much to ask and all that, but kinda something that would help if people could actually buy a house on 3.5x their actual earnings, not some average wage figure of 35k for a bloke, which is actually pretty close to higher earner teritory, funnily enough.

People don't buy a house on one income these days do they? They buy a house on the basis of 2 incomes. This change must push the cost of housing up but also make people less vunerable than they were in previous recessions.

One person might lose their job but what is the chance of both parties losing their jobs? This must make the amount of repos around less than in previous recessions?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

But the graph clearly shows the return to mean. we are there at the moment so it is the only way it fits.
That is why the graph is so wrong to use.

You say we are at the retrun to mean on that graph.

To be at the return to mean, we would have had to have had falling prices and the bull trap.

So far, we have had falling prices, without a bull trap. Now, we have green shoots all over the news, the bull trap.

If you are telling me we are at the return to mean, please can you tell me when we went through the falling prices, then the bull trap, and then falling prices again? Please?

Your theory has conviniently missed part of the graph.

Graham_Devon

setmefree2 wrote: »

People don't buy a house on one income these days do they? They buy a house on the basis of 2 incomes. This change must push the cost of housing up but also make people less vunerable than they were in previous recessions.

One person might lose their job but what is the chance of both parties losing their jobs? This must make the amount of repos around less than in previous recessions?

I think you would be surprised just how many buy houses on one income.

We have thousands of families in the country where the second income is from part time jobs when the kids are at school, making some pocket money.

I think it would be foolish to believe the UK is full of childless couples all working at average wage or higher jobs.

People always seem to look past the fact also, that when a couple are working, with children, often one wage is paying entirely for childcare.

Dan:_4

Graham_Devon wrote: »

People always seem to look past the fact also, that when a couple are working, with children, often one wage is paying entirely for childcare.

I can't see the point in that!

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Your theory has conviniently missed part of the graph.

Surely the return to mean is the most important factor as you have to fit it everything in around that. (mean is the only consistant on the graph)

The graph is !!oX accept it and move on.

I have stated the only way the graph fits is on the dates I said so 04-07 would have been bull trap, after 07 falling prices.

Like I said you could apply it to purchasing jaffa cakes if you want

Graham its pants. Look at the market not a graph on the grief process.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think you would be surprised just how many buy houses on one income.

We have thousands of families in the country where the second income is from part time jobs when the kids are at school, making some pocket money.

I think it would be foolish to believe the UK is full of childless couples all working at average wage or higher jobs.

People always seem to look past the fact also, that when a couple are working, with children, often one wage is paying entirely for childcare.

there has been a marked increase in dual income property buyers.

however, to add to your point many buy on individual income and get together with the a partner who already has a property. they then let one of those places out. there has been a marked increase here too.

setmefree2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think you would be surprised just how many buy houses on one income.

We have thousands of families in the country where the second income is from part time jobs when the kids are at school, making some pocket money.

I think it would be foolish to believe the UK is full of childless couples all working at average wage or higher jobs.

People always seem to look past the fact also, that when a couple are working, with children, often one wage is paying entirely for childcare.

I don't disagree. I'm just trying to think of reasons why house prices are rising:D.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Surely the return to mean is the most important factor as you have to fit it everything in around that. (mean is the only consistant on the graph)

The graph is !!oX accept it and move on.

I have stated the only way the graph fits is on the dates I said so 04-07 would have been bull trap.

Graham its pants. Look at the market not a graph on the grief process.

So you can't actually tell me that were not following the graph.

But you want to tell me it's rubbish.

You also want to tell me were at the return to normal stage, but cannot tell me when we have been through the other stages?

By all means tell me you dont believe in the graph, but dont at the same time tell me where we are on it!!

bendix

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thats a monumental jump in prices, up around 4% in one month, considering it was -1.7% last month....

QUOTE]


I think you need to go back to schoolto retake Maths olevels.

How is a month on month raise of 2.6% a raise of 4%? It isn't. Prices have risen 2.6% since last month.

If the price of a house was 100,000 last month, then it is 102600 this month, not £104000. The fact it was perhaps 102,000 the previous month (to account for you 1.7% drop then, is neither here nor there).

Graham_Devon

Dan: wrote: »

I can't see the point in that!

I can!

Some people want kids, but also want to keep their career going, or are not the sort of person who can give up everything and become a full time mum 24/7.

Personally, i think I would go insane in the house all day every day with a baby. Though I love kids.

There are about 5 women at work who work to pay for childcare. 3 of them will be a 2 wage family....doesnt mean they have a 2 wage INCOME.