So what have we learnt from the recession?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

*sigh*

If it needed the bottom tier of earners, it couldn't.

But as we are forming 250,000 new households a year, and only building 80,000 houses..... Then only the top earning 35% or 40% of households need to be able to afford to buy a house for prices to rise.

Right, I see what your basically saying now.

You want prices to rise, thats pretty obvious. I doubt you would if you did not own, so this is purely a personal thing, makes you richer.

So you would prefer to see 65% of the population priced out, to achieve your wealth.

So, back to the original question, instead of this turning into yet another "Hamish wants house prices to rise". Have we learnt anything? This thread wasn't just about houses.

ETA: You are under counting the amount of new homes built each year by over half. In 2006/7 173,000 homes were built. In 2005/6, 167,000 homes were built.

I always have to check whatever you say, as it's normally, as per above, complete twaddle!

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/number+of+houses+being+built+down/516162

Afriend_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

*sigh*

If it needed the bottom tier of earners, it couldn't.

But as we are forming 250,000 new households a year, and only building 80,000 houses..... Then only the top earning 35% or 40% of households need to be able to afford to buy a house for prices to rise.

Links please Hamish. Call me a cynic but I am somewhat reluctant to believe any stats, especially if they don't come with links.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Afriend wrote: »

Links please Hamish. Call me a cynic but I am somewhat reluctant to believe any stats, especially if they don't come with links.

http://!!!!!!!.com/m6qnbv

replace !!!!!!!! with t i n y url

Graham_Devon

LOL. Hamish is stuck.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL. Hamish is stuck.

LOL..... Not.:rolleyes:

“The central assumption from the Department of Communities and Local Government is that long term net
migration will be 171,500 per year, 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, which would represent by far the lowest level on record
(chart 4). As it is likely to take time for the economy and housing construction to recover to pre-crisis levels, the
potential exists for a considerable housing shortfall to develop over the next few years. This would be on top of
the shortfall that already started to develop in 2004, when even boom-time levels of construction failed to keep
pace with household growth.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Jul_2009.pdf

And the latest RICS report revised the housebuilding down to 80,000, but you can google that if you want it.

Graham_Devon

Look, you are working on assumptions. That's fair enough, if you say that.

But you gave it as fact. It's not fact.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Afriend wrote: »

Links please Hamish. Call me a cynic but I am somewhat reluctant to believe any stats, especially if they don't come with links.

So now you've got the links and the facts.

Do you see the point? That if only 80K houses are built, and 250k households are formed, then only the top earning 80K need to be able to afford a house for prices to remain constant.

If 100K can afford a house, prices will rise. If 150K can afford a house, prices will boom.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Look, you are working on assumptions. That's fair enough, if you say that.

But you gave it as fact. It's not fact.

Oh !!!!!! Graham, what do you expect them to do? Go out there and count every single new household?

Stop being pedantic. Those are the best estimates, and nobody disputes that there is a housing shortage, and lot's of new household formation.

You're never going to get it accurate down to the exact household. :rolleyes:

wageslave

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, so all we have is an older generation able to afford who have prospered through the earlier years, while their kids are priced out and "just wont be able to buy".
Thats great Hamish. How long will that last?

More social housing is one possible answer. Either build or buy up available housing stock and rent it to those who need it. Give people a credible alternative to home ownership and watch property prices tumble as fewer people chase up the market.

chucky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So now you've got the links and the facts.

Do you see the point? That if only 80K houses are built, and 250k households are formed, then only the top earning 80K need to be able to afford a house for prices to remain constant.

If 100K can afford a house, prices will rise. If 150K can afford a house, prices will boom.

i thought that you were stuck with this one Hamish...

don't these negative people understand the above :rotfl: