UK Property to HALVE Between Now and July 29, 2010

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

Erm, no. A joint income of 40k getting you a nice house in a decent, first time buyer type area. With great access to the centre and not a sh*tty new build.

I said in my previous post, I could give you 'horrible' areas: Moss Side, Longsight, Hulme.. etc. where you can already buy for anything from £40k if you want. However, I think even these areas have decent bits.

Like I say, I don't know the area, but dopester appears too?

Anyway, what about my other points

Cleaver

dopester wrote: »

If a couple really need to pull in the best part of £40K to have an affordable house, but it having to be in somewhere like Eccles and Failsworth, then there is no hope.

There is no point arguing this, as I think Eccles is a perfectly decent little town. Shops, bars, restaurants, good people and great transport links.

dopester wrote: »

Those properties you rightmove list would be expensive at 50% off today's asking prices. Maybe your police officer is protected for his £30K job, but many a person struggling to find such high-paying job... especially graduates coming through who finding it tough to land a £17K job on what would have been that path. Will the wife's £9K job keep paying, or even exist in the longer term? Plenty of people chasing such jobs.

If I was a graduate earning 17k I wouldn't be wanting to buy a house. As a 21 year old I would rent or live with parents, look to get a decent job and further my qualifications. I'd aim to earn 30k by the time I was late twenties then buy a home.

I know, I know, deflationary vortex, 40% unemployment, islamification, country going down the pan...

It'd still be my intention to just be more employable than everyone else, work hard, and get the jobs I wanted.

And I have absolutely no idea if the wife would keep her job. I also don't know if the guy would be hit by a bus. Or if one of them would get ill. Or if Manchester gets hit by a bomb. Of if one of them lost a limb and couldn't work. Or, or, or. Because most people understand that life is full of risk, and you just have to get on with it. So they buy a house they can afford, and learn to live with the low risk of 'what if'.

F*ck me, I'd like to think I don't act like a typical 'bull' on this site, but ye gods, how perfect do you want life to be? I agree, houses are way to expensive, generally. Prices should come down. FTBers should be able to get a house. I, like you, see no advantage in HPI.

I just can't see how you can argue that the houses I showed you don't provide average earning, average people, with an average property?

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Like I say, I don't know the area, but dopester appears too?

Anyway, what about my other points

I think I addressed them all in my post at the end of page 6.

Cleaver

dopester wrote: »

Manchester Evening News. (June 05, 2009)

This is a story about central Salford, specifcially Langworth Road. It's about 2 miles from Eccles, but a million miles away in terms of living conditions.

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

I would dispute that it's one of the 'cheapest places around'. And if the NW is one of the cheapest places around, it means that 8 million people have access to some of the 'cheapest places around'. Which is quite good isn't it?

Well, it's made no difference so far, people still can't afford them. So in one sense, yes, suppose it's good for people in the north, but on the other hand, it seems to have made little difference to affordability.

And the NW is certainly no cheaper than the Yorks and Humber or North East Areas. So that's around 18 million people with access to cheap housing.

Again, the last few years has shown this to be worthless anyway, as although "cheap" in terms of high prices, they are certainly not cheap in terms of affordability vs wages.

So I don't think you can dismiss the top bit of country as just being a small bit with dirt cheap houses.

I didnt

Very true. But forgetting history, does your sentiment and knowledge of people in general not tell you that houses in one of Britain's biggest cities falling to around 1x people's earnings would be very cheap?

Don't do sentiment. I do historical patterns, as I can base my points on something more solid than my feelings. Not a jab, just explaining why I think sentiment is worthless.

I never said anything about 1x wages either, neither would a 50% fall relate to 1% wages.

Because a lot of couples in Manchester will earn around 40k a year. If prices in Manchester fall 50% you will be able to get a 3-bed house in a decent area for 50k. Are you really of the mindset that demand and prices stablisation wouldn't kick in before these levels are reached?

A lot might earn 40k combined. But as Manchester was recently shown to be one of the areas of highest poverty, I'd suggest a hell of a lot more are NOT earning that. So depends on how you are defining a "lot".

To me, this is why I need to stick to averages again, and not my idea of a lot, which could be one hundred couples earning over 40k, as thats a lot, compared to 10,000 couples earning 20k combined. 100 couples could still be "a lot" depending on your viewpoint.

Protected from 50% falls?

Just to go back and confirm what you are saying. You see houses in Manchester, currently around the £120k mark falling in price by around 4% a month, for the next year? That these houses will be selling for 60k next summer?

Nope. I have said throughout this thread I do not think prices will fall a further 50% by next summer. So I'm not suggesting, implying, or saying that

That's just the title of this thread, not my thoughts.

Ah well. I tell you what, we'll come back in 12 months and see if Manchester property has fallen 50%. Fantastic if it does: me and the Mrs will get a penthouse in the centre, pretty much everyone I know who doesn't own a house will be able to get a really, really nice first house and my friends that do own a home now will be able to move to a much nicer home. So it will be good news all round. Can't see it somehow though, as houses here are pretty affordable already.

Ok. Just remember, thats JUST the title of this thread , I have said I don't agree on the various pages further back, neither did I start the thread.

But if that's the way we have to play now, fair enough, but your kinda arguing with me about not seeing it, when I agree

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A lot might earn 40k combined. But as Manchester was recently shown to be one of the areas of highest poverty, I'd suggest a hell of a lot more are NOT earning that. So depends on how you are defining a "lot".

To me, this is why I need to stick to averages again, and not my idea of a lot, which could be one hundred couples earning over 40k, as thats a lot, compared to 10,000 couples earning 20k combined. 100 couples could still be "a lot" depending on your viewpoint.

Right, I'm off out in a mo, so only time to waffle very quickly.

Slightly out of date article (Nov 2007), but it shows average wage in Manchester to be around £32k. And it also states that Oldham, Greater Manchester is the "worst paid place" in the countrywith an average wage of £22k. So a couple, earning the average wage in the lowest paid place in the whole country, will earn £44k. An 'average' couple in Manchester will earn £64k between them. I'm sure that a majority earn under these amounts. So let's take a good 30% off that average Manchester wage of £64k, and you still have a joint income of over £40k. Which is enough to buy all the houses in my example.

I get called a liberal lefty on this site quite a bit, but I think I'm quite Tory when it comes to wages. If you're of a house buying age (mid-late twenties?) and you earn a combined income of £20k, you aint buying a house. Ever. Get a different career, get some qualifications and earn more. Or, get used to not owning a house.

Right, going out for a meal with friends, in Eccles funnily enough. I'll try not to get stabbed Mr Dopester.

StevieJ

dopester wrote: »

Eccles, Failsworth, Beswick. All reasonable for affordability when you assume old-world boom pay and opportunities going forward in to the future, and when you have limited horizons for aspiration.

Pretty dog-rough poor areas imo, although I don't really know Beswick.

If a couple really need to pull in the best part of £40K to have an affordable house, but it having to be in somewhere like Eccles and Failsworth, then there is no hope.

I believe that Eccles was the birthplace of the just retired ex England cricket captain Michael Vaughan, not bad 'when you have limited horizons for aspiration'.

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

Right, I'm off out in a mo, so only time to waffle very quickly.

Slightly out of date article (Nov 2007), but it shows average wage in Manchester to be around £32k. And it also states that Oldham, Greater Manchester is the "worst paid place" in the countrywith an average wage of £22k. So a couple, earning the average wage in the lowest paid place in the whole country, will earn £44k. An 'average' couple in Manchester will earn £64k between them. I'm sure that a majority earn under these amounts. So let's take a good 30% off that average Manchester wage of £64k, and you still have a joint income of over £40k. Which is enough to buy all the houses in my example.

I get called a liberal lefty on this site quite a bit, but I think I'm quite Tory when it comes to wages. If you're of a house buying age (mid-late twenties?) and you earn a combined income of £20k, you aint buying a house. Ever. Get a different career, get some qualifications and earn more. Or, get used to not owning a house.

Right, going out for a meal with friends, in Eccles funnily enough. I'll try not to get stabbed Mr Dopester.

Alright for some, I'm stuck in!

Anyway, I'd agree about the average wage for couples. And I have always agreed about averages wages for couples.

BUT, I'm always talking about families, as thats what usually makes a couple. There are far more "couples" who are part of a family, with kids, than there are just couples, bar those who have had their children.

Not many couples stay as that and don't go on to have children, hence the rising population.

So, when I look at couples, I don't just look at 2 people, I look at the majority, and the majority of the first time buyer type ages (which is what I believe you were aiming those houses and prices at) will also have babies, kids, debts.

I believe what you are talking about is professional couples.

I believe professional couples are far outweighed with families with children who need looking after, which means either the second wage pays for childcare, or theres only one wage.

I keep saying, I like to look at reality. Reality is you can't have kids and bring in two full time wages, without paying for childcare (apart from extreme cases where grandparents have a full time job).

Reality is what we are living in.

So basing things on actual reality, and averages, no, I don't think those house prices are 2.8x wages.

Theres a big difference here. Bulls keep talking of couples wages, but ignoring family ties. You cannot ignore this. The majority of couples for whom your aiming these houses at, will have kids. They cost money, either in terms of childcare, or in terms of only being able to do a short part time job, or costs in terms of one parent staying at home with the kids.

For your analogy to work, you would need the second parent to have a well paid, but short in terms of hours, part time job, and for the other partner to have a very well paid job.

These families, simply do not outstrip the majority. What am I basing this on? Everyone I personally know, all those at work etc.

I strongly believe we need to look at majorities, reality and constraints before just saying "well its affordable on a couples wage".

The very fact that you need a couples wage of 40k to even start thinking of these FTB places, without having constraints of kids sums up to me, everything that is wrong with current prices.

It's very simple in my mind. The average couple does not fit the perfect requirements you have outlayed to be able to afford those "cheap" prices.

Don't agree with the getting a new job and qualifications personally. If 20k is what people are in general earning, which is closer to the real 28k houshold income figure, then commodities need to be priced to reflect this. Housing is a commodity.

fc123

OMG...and we never did get the answer in inches either.

PS; I am glad you find the energy to type what is in your head Cleaver..this board is so, so.... DoomLaden. Why do I keep coming back?

shakerbaby

This is a well researched article from a well-known and respected publisher. The warning signs are clear to one and all presently holding property: SELL SELL SELL before you miss the boat. :eek::eek::eek: