A serious question for the Bears....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Everything seems so darn perfect in the world of Julie!

Graham, the only one with their head in the sand is you.

You have some misguided view that prices will drop to a previous low level because...... well, just because you think they should.

You ignore affordability of mortgages.

You ignore population increase, household formation increase, and underbuilding.

You ignore the fact that only the top paid 40% of households have to be able to afford a house for prices to rise.

You ignore reality, and the fundamental laws of supply and demand.

You ignore anything that does not fit with your narrow belief system, that houses should be affordable for all, and will be one day. A belief system that has been proved wrong again, and again, and again. Houses have never been affordable for everyone, and it's not going to start now.

We deal in facts, evidence, statistics, reality.

You deal in anecdotals, theories, and fiction.

Almost every single one of the dozens of bear memes has been comprehensively destroyed by reality as events have unfolded. Yet you keep desperately clinging to these straws, and re-hashing old and discredited theories. Over, and over, and over again. Just give it up. It's done.

The great crash of 07 to 09 turned out to be not so great after all. It was a nice idea, but it's over.

the_ash_and_the_oak

julieq wrote: »

It's certainly cheaper to pay a mortgage over 25 years than to pay rent over a lifetime. Rents will rise with general inflation, mortgages just fluctuate on interest rates. Over time as a proportion of both take home salary and in real terms a mortgage repayment falls back quite quickly, but rental will always increase, and of course has to be funded into retirement.
.

pretty sure i wasnt talking about comparing rent against mortgage over the lifetime of a mortgage imo.

it may be cheaper to rent for 6 years and then take out a 19 year mortgage for example.

andykn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What are you on about, 3x salary?! Mortgage approvals based on this conservatilvely!? Just where on earth have you got this from!?

Everything seems so darn perfect in the world of Julie!

I think what Julie is getting at is that if a couple earning roughly the same, 'x' each, get a mortgage it will be 2.5 times 2 times 'x' and so their annual repayments will be about 6% of 5 times 'x'; about a third of one salary. So if one of them loses their job, the mortgage repayments are still only less than a third of the remaining (gross) salary.

Graham_Devon

Since when was the "great crash" only to live until 2009?

I didn't know it had a cap on the timeframe?

As for the rest, whatever, spose the best thing to do would be to agree to disagree and just get on with things rather than going over something time and time again in the middle of a period which could set out the map for some time to come.

But as for the affordable for all, I have never ever said housing should be affordable for all, I have only ever said it should be affordable for the average family.

I have always agreed that someone on a minimum wage is never going to be able to afford a house. But you keep telling me I think housing should be affordable for all time and time again. Its getting tiring, but I'd expect no less to be honest. Where I don't agree is that housing should be affordable for a person, or two people who match a criteria specification, i.e. the one so many talk about, where both people in a couple work full time. Why don't I agree? Because life is not that simple.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I have never ever said housing should be affordable for all, I have only ever said it should be affordable for the average family.
.

What you try to portray as the average family, isn't the average family anymore.

Really2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What you try to portray as the average family, isn't the average family anymore.

Average family income is £35K not one wage like some have made out.
http://www.axa.co.uk/media/pressreleases/2008/pr20080618_0900.html

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What you try to portray as the average family, isn't the average family anymore.

Right ok.

Well let's do this then. Let's discuss this, so that we can move on and debunk the whole "you think this" stuff. Instead of telling me what I think, and how I'm wrong in what I think, tell me why I'm wrong, not just that I am.

If, as you say, the average family is not the average family anymore, then what is?

So my question to you is. What is the average family now if it's not the same "anymore"?

You seem to know what I class as the average family, as you have told me I am wrong, so there is no need for me to explain what the average family to me is, right?

purch

Graham, the only one with their head in the sand is you

I thought it was somewhere else :eek:

Graham_Devon

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right ok.

Well let's do this then. Let's discuss this, so that we can move on and debunk the whole "you think this" stuff. Instead of telling me what I think, and how I'm wrong in what I think, tell me why I'm wrong, not just that I am.

If, as you say, the average family is not the average family anymore, then what is?

So my question to you is. What is the average family now if it's not the same "anymore"?

You seem to know what I class as the average family, as you have told me I am wrong, so there is no need for me to explain what the average family to me is, right?

Hamish????

You haven't run have you? You thanked the jab, but didn't answer the question? Surprise.

julieq

The average household income is defined on the website of the office for national statistics. It's about £35K.

What's your definition of an average family, Graham? Why don't we start from that?

And as for things being perfect, who said that? I'm describing things how they are. A 3x 2 salary multiple derived at a time when mortgage rates were near 10% is certainly conservative at a time when they're available at 4% and many people will have them lower. Affordability is certainly better by any measure. But the bar - the multiple available - is set in essentially the same place.