More houses needed, says Government adviser

mewbie_2

dgl1001 wrote: »

Good god - your arrogance amazes me.

Please remember to be nice to all Moneysavers.

sleepyj

dgl1001 wrote: »

clearly your struggling with the concept of supply and demand!!!

If nobody can afford it, there's no demand

Not exactly a difficult concept to grasp

sleepyj

Really2 wrote: »

By HPI i mean another boom in the future. It only takes a spark and I think the spark last time was family homes.
People saw them increase caused by demand. They then started to buy all kinds of property as they saw the price going up, and up ending in mainly 1 bed flats being built (the boom and greed took the focus on what the actual shortage was)

Only when they crash again do you see what actually was in demand and houses in general have faired fairly well in the crash.

Well for an hpc it only takes a spark

At the moment there are quite a few of these "sparks" 1 : lack of credit 2: rising unemployment 3: wage deflation 4 : "forced landlords" causing rent deflation 5 : companies like Aviva building huge amount of rental property causing yet more rent deflation and increasing the housing stock 6: commercial property has fallen and has become prime for residental purposes 7: BTL regulations are coming in to make landlords comply to certain standards

These factors are enough to lower the price of family property, and free up enough housing stock to create more family homes. That's if people want them at all in the future given that renting is going to become so cheap and hassle free

chucky

sleepyj wrote: »

If nobody can afford it, there's no demand

Not exactly a difficult concept to grasp

well according to the affordability indexes there now are many regions that are lower and others pretty close to it than the historical averages... the North, South East, East Anglia for example...

so your nobody doesn't really apply... or it's totally incorrect...
http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/excel/RegionalAffordability.xls

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

sleepyj wrote: »

If nobody can afford it, there's no demand

Not exactly a difficult concept to grasp

I take it you understand the difference between "nobody" and "you"?;)

Once again, With 270,000 households forming per year, and only 100,000 houses being built, then only the top earning 40% of those households need to be able to afford (and compete for) a house in order for prices to rise.....

"You", and 60% of the population, can be priced out whilst prices continue to rise anyway.

sleepyj

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I take it you understand the difference between "nobody" and "you"?;)

Once again, With 270,000 households forming per year, and only 100,000 houses being built, then only the top earning 40% of those households need to be able to afford (and compete for) a house in order for prices to rise.....

"You", and 60% of the population, can be priced out whilst prices continue to rise anyway.

Oh Hamish, we've already been through this on another forum, and what I own makes you look like a schoolboy. That's your assumptive reasoning shining through again.

sleepyj

chucky wrote: »

well according to the affordability indexes there now are many regions that are lower and others pretty close to it than the historical averages... the North, South East, East Anglia for example...

so your nobody doesn't really apply... or it's totally incorrect...
http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/excel/RegionalAffordability.xls

And what about the fact that there's hardly any credit kicking about and jobs are being shed left right and centre while wages are deflating or have you missed that bit?

sleepyj

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Source already quoted a number of times.

July 2009 Nationwide HPI report.

Yes Hamish I read that too

It's flawed in that they don't take into account future emigration which, given the state of the country is set to increase as much as the stats are now showing immigration is falling off a cliff. Now redo your sums and assume net emigration over 100,000 per year. :rotfl:

Edit : just checked again, 270,000 is not the 252,000 they are projecting on current migration stats! How do you round up by 18,000? :rotfl:

sleepyj

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I take it you understand the difference between "nobody" and "you"?;)

Once again, With 270,000 households forming per year, and only 100,000 houses being built, .

Just so we're clear

... resulting in an annual increase in the number of households in England of
252,000 once other factors are taken into account. Even if one were to assume zero net migration, however, the
number of households is still projected to expand by an average of 153,000 units per year through to 2031.
Whatever the true number is, it is almost certain that current levels of housing construction have fallen far below
future levels of household formation (chart 3). Based on recent levels of housing starts, it looks likely that only
around 100,000 homes will be built during 2009

270,000 is 252,000 rounded up :rotfl:

chucky

sleepyj wrote: »

And what about the fact that there's hardly any credit kicking about and jobs are being shed left right and centre while wages are deflating or have you missed that bit?

oh ok - so you've agreed that affordability is ok and it's due lack of credit that people that can't buy property... they are two different things...

unemployment is an issue. not sure about jobs being shed left, right and centre. unemployment is currently at around 7.5% - that would mean a 92.5% employment rate of people that can work. apparently you need 10% plus unemployment to start to have a serious impact on house prices.

also unemployment isn't exclusive to just homeowners?