The reason for my pessimistic thoughts

purch

Which is the more affordable

£75,000 at 14%

£151,000 at 5%

There is also the question, as to what is more affordable for the nation, and the whole economy over time.

It should be a no-brainer as to that answer !!!

P.S. Sorry............two "as to" in any post is overkill !!!!!

freyasmum

Many things have made it harder to buy, especially on your own - more women in the workplace, pushing for equality; rise of available credit; increase in peoples expectations (we were in this house for about 3 years before we had a hall carpet ); etc.

I do have to say though, I think the most important thing here is greed. People are greedy, and they're impatient.

Oh, there has also been a shift in our attitudes re families. Now it pays to be a single parent - when we were growing up, it was all about the family. We were taken away and left to play in fields, in trees, paddling in the river in the sun whilst our parents cooked on a BBQ, for example but now that wouldn't be good enough (will be for my little one though!), people want 'stuff' not memories. If children are taken out, it's to the cinema, or to mcdonalds or to somewhere else that involves a wad of cash

Anyway, there was a point to that kinda rant in there. If you managed to find it, well done.

You're a nice guy (sorry to ruin your image ), just stop being so goddamn negative/cynical/gloomy/add your own word here about everything.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, answer 75k.

Why? Because people may actually be able to get that level of mortgage by working. Plus, 14% interest rates have happened how many times in the last century? go to 13%, also extremely rare, and the 75k is cheaper than the more normal 5%.

So historically 5.5% is the average.

You know know why house prices are not £75k. They will fall to an affordable level until their is not enough stock.

in reality their 25M properties in th UK 10M of those are occupied by one person I believe so 15M for 50m people.

That is why one single wage will not buy a house as their is not enough stock.

Also low IR = low inflation high IR = high inflation.
In reality their is no difference because if rates shot up again you would expect wage inflation to follow.

the fact is people will afford to be able to buy or they won't. Market forces will dictate that nothing else.

Things only become cheap if their is an over supply even the withdrawal of credit does not stop it in the long run.
The Chinese city's are vastly more expensive comparing their average wage. They just save more and buy later.

People under estimate how populated this island is and the world is as a whole. This as a massive effect on prices and resources as a whole.

To ignore the fact of competition is one of the oddest thing some bears do. look we are in the middle of a recession yet prices seem to becoming more stable than last year.
Why because their are still many who can afford to buy.

Pobby

Graham, like your OP. I am a bit older than your Dad and also bought at about the same time. Had I purchased a bit earlier I would have saved a lot. The couple who sold it to us had to drop £1,000 to shift it after a dose of prehistoric hpi.

What has been over looked here is that the 70`s wage inflation wafted away the debt. My earnings in 1970 were £24 for a 6 day week, that was thought pretty good. By 1980 it was about £200 a week, very good.

We downsized in 1998, 3 and half times earnings you would have to be getting 10k a year. By 2007, 40k would have been the figure. Probably 6 or 7k spent on improvements!

Oldernotwiser

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Like I say, don't argue about it, just correct me if I'm wrong, and tell us why you are an optimist and why you think a trend of high house prices, out of reach for pretty much anyone but the working couple, is better than my alternative approach.

I'm of your parents' generation and nobody I knew was ever able to afford to buy a property until they were part of a couple. I was living in house/flat shares until I was nearly 30 and, in fact, have never lived on my own because of the costs.

These things vary around the country but my experience is typical of the south east over very many years.

Harry_Powell

pipkin71 wrote: »

I have two children Really.

I want to see them settled when they're older, and will do what I can to help them, but I would also like to have seen my parents enjoying life more rather than saving so much, if that makes sense.

Isn't the mark of a good parent that they raised their children into self-sufficient adults? I really don't understand this mania for wanting to financially help 'children' that are well into their 20's or 30's.

My folks provided me with good role models, were (and still are) there for me when I needed them and ensured I emerged from my happy childhood prepared for adulthood. There has never been any talk of financial handouts, nor would I want there to be.

To answer the OPs question: I'm optimistic and happy not because I have a pile of bricks and mortar (because I haven't, I'm renting) but because I share my life with a wonderful family, great friends and a gorgeous and funny girlfriend. Anything else is secondary. You need to be thankful for what you have, not longing for what you don't have, and material things really dont make you happy.

Oldernotwiser

Really2 wrote: »

I agree but as a child I think you hate to see your parents strugle (we were poor) but also as a parent you will do anything for your kids.

We never very logical as a race are we

I think that in the past, people used to want to give their kids a good start rather than worrying about providing for them when they were adults or assuming that they should be helped not to struggle. It was always expected that by the time that you were settled and in your thirties it was your turn to help your parents!

Oldernotwiser

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Isn't the mark of a good parent that they raised their children into self-sufficient adults? I really don't understand this mania for wanting to financially help 'children' that are well into their 20's or 30's.

:T:T:T:T:T

There seem to be so many people now who think that their success as parents can be measured by how much their adult children depend on them. If they're emotionally and financially independent parents find that they're criticised for not being a "close" family.

ess0two

Everything in life is a gamble,when we first bought it was quite a stretch but got better over time.
People who wait for all the pieces to fit together will wait forever.

ninky_2

socrates wrote: »

The reasons for the change from your/my parents time - is that the minimum requirements to be normal are so much higher.

Unless you have all the following you are deemed to be abnormal or that there is something wrong with you. For families some of the things in the list will be needed by each member.

SKY TV
latest flat screen
the latest mobile phone
yearly holiday abroad
a car
ps3 - wii
dvd player
computer
internet
new wardrobe of clothes annually
memberships - gym etc
therapy treatments - nails, hair, sunbeds etc
restaurant/take -aways at least once a week

plus about another 20 things if you are a family.

not really. mortgage companies are more interested in your income than your outgoings (unless its debt payments), so this argument doesn't hold.

in the past the majority would have had smallholdings of land. now only a few can afford such a luxury. quality of life has gone up in terms of healthcare and average life expectancy but down in terms of working hours and access to land. some might see this as a necessary price to pay but personally i don't. i've decided to keep my property ambitions moderate in terms of a place to live. like OP my parents were in a detatched 3 bed cottage by the time they were my age despite few academic qualifications and only one income whilst we live in a one bed flat with an outstanding mortgage and two incomes.