UK Property to HALVE Between Now and July 29, 2010

tommy75

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's actually probably a chart.

Thanks for that, I'm drinking Asda smart price vodka.

fc123

shakerbaby wrote: »

For the love of Allah the temperature differences between Glasgow and London are minimal. :rolleyes:

It's the wind chill factor though.....must be the carbs.....

Cleaver

shakerbaby wrote: »

Best not frighten those bulls. :rotfl:

Can I just say that when these threads descend in to "that'll silence the bears", or "ooh, the bulls don't like the one", they become really dull.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That would be something to do with the demand for properties outweighing supply

mewbie wrote: »

The small argument I would make back to him (now he's gone off to dinner / whatever) is that if the average person can afford the average property how come there are apparently a million unsold properties on Rightmove and prices are forecast to keep on falling?

Well, would you buy a property right now? Chances are they will be cheaper this time next year, at worst they certainly won't be any more expensive and you will have saved mored of a deposit.

Having said this, I don't think people's urge to buy their own home (if that what floats your boat, renting is the choice for many of course) has dulled in anyway. The 'demand', or however you want to describe it, will always be there for people. It's just that that demand is somewhat controlled by either a price being too expensive, access to credit or, presumably, a perception (probably correct) that you'll be able to get it cheaper further down the line.

I think that is the reason for houses being unsold on Rightmove.

mewbie wrote: »

I think Cleaver posted some pretty sensible stuff... as usual.

You're a beautiful man, you really are.

mewbie wrote: »

But I also think he sees it from his perspective, as indeed we all see it from ours

That's very true. It's pretty easy for me to say sitting up here, rather than in a town such as Croydon which isn't very nice but yet you still have to pay £300k for a shoebox.

This thread has got so confiused that I'm not even sure what my original point was. I think it was just the perception that people across the country are on pitiful wages and property is 6 or 7 times their wage. And that isn't the case everywhere. Up here, in a city I truly love living in, you can buy a house that's fairly reasonable. 'Tis all. I think they should probably be a bit cheaper really (so I probably agree with you and Graham) and it'd be nicer to see more people able to afford them. But, with reference to the title of the thread, falling 50% will not happen around here.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Anyway, just one more add on. Cleaver, you seem to be saying that the average wage couple can afford a FTB home in a dodgy area. This slipped past me until now!

Surely if they are bringing in that sort of money, they should be able to get something a little better than a FTB home? I.e., the average home?

For f*ck's sake Graham. No offense, but I can see why people get frustrated with you on here. We can go back and forth with figures, but someone who works as a nurse, IT worker, senior officer worker, police officer, salesman etc. with a part time, low-income worker can buy an okay house. That's what I'm saying. And I think that seems pretty much okay. I agree, they should may be a bit cheaper. But that's life, isn't it?

We have loads of average friends in Manchester, with average jobs, with less than average kids (always crying and stopping them coming out, annoying things), who live in houses that they have bought. And they have money for other stuff too. Some with more money, some with less. It just happens.

I give up.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Alright for some, I'm stuck in!

Well, you don't get to 26,000 posts by having a social life my argumentative friend.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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 feel like crying. I don't know Graham. I just look about me, at people in my office, with families who earn between 18k and, well, up to 100k I guess, and a load of them live in houses they've bought. Some of them very recently. That article tells me that the average couple earns £64k, you say a household income is £28k. Who knows? Houses hey, too expensive and stuff. I've lost the will to live.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I can't go any further with this argument, other than to say that if you're in your late twenties and you earn 10k, maybe 12 years after leaving school, and you've done nothing to earn more or make an effort to get further qualifications, then I don't think you're in a position to afford buying a house. I don't know how you live on 10k, let alone save a depsosit. I don't know how you afford to furnish a house, how you would afford to pay council tax, home insurance. Just sounds like a bad idea to me.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

fc123 wrote: »

It's the wind chill factor though.....must be the carbs.....

Don't know about glasgow, but the temp difference between London and Aberdeen is frequently 7-10 degrees or more in both summer highs and winter lows. I'm sure the averages aren't that far apart, but it makes a big difference when it's 32 in London and only 25 (or sometimes only 18 for that matter) in Aberdeen. Or 5 degrees in London and minus 10 in Aberdeen.

Graham_Devon

Fair enough points cleaver. Its your POV.

Just don't agree when you talk about 2.8x wages and stuff and feel it's best to put reasons why.

And I wasn't on here last night, but thanks for the jab

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Originally Posted by Graham_Devon
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.


No. Commodities will always be priced to the maximum amount that the market will bear, not some arbitrary amount an observer thinks might be fair.

Commodities don't NEED to be priced to anything other than the maximum amount people will pay.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Originally Posted by Graham_Devon
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.


No. Commodities will always be priced to the maximum amount that the market will bear, not some arbitrary amount an observer thinks might be fair.

Commodities don't NEED to be priced to anything other than the maximum amount people will pay.

Why does food come down then when it was previously higher in price in line with other factors?

We can bare bread at £1.50 a loaf. Why is it now £1.09 for Kingsmill when I was paying £1.55 last year?

Why did diesel come down from £1.30 per litre?

julieq

Competition Graham.

When there's competition for houses, people get emotional about where they want to live and prices go up. Prices for houses have always sat at the limit of affordability for that reason. They don't go down out of a sense of fairness.

Can't honestly see that happening for Kingsmill though. Unless Kingsmill happens to be a restored watermill in the Cotswolds.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Competition Graham.

When there's competition for houses, people get emotional about where they want to live and prices go up. Prices for houses have always sat at the limit of affordability for that reason. They don't go down out of a sense of fairness.

They haven't always sat at the limit of affordability.

Check out 1996 and other bottoms of the market.

Cleaver

I thought I'd just post something I thought was interesting, rather than argue back and forth. A map of west Manchester / Salford:




The single red dot is near to where they were talking about in the article Dopester posted. You can get a 3-bed house right on that red dot for £58k.

The double red dot, a few hundred yards away on the opposite side of Buile Hill park is a 5-bed house for £400k.

The single blue dot is a 4-bed house for £250k

The double blue dot is a 2-bed terrace for £55k.

Then just 1/2 mile south, on the single green dot you can buy a 2-bed flat for £685k.

It's strange having such diversity of property in such a small area. And kinda shows that when you say an area, like Salford (and this is pretty much all one postcode area) is of a certain type, you're invariably wrong. The area where the single red dot and double blue dot are are areas of real deprevation, poverty, crime and not-very-niceness. The area north of the park (double red and single blue!) is such a nice area. Views of the park, lovely houses. All within such a small space.

There is no point to this post whatsoever. But Sex on the City is on the Cleaver television, and this is more interesting.