London home 'needs £93,000 wage'

Really2

Bonia77 wrote: »

Bear in mind that some women don't want to be full-time housewives irrespective of their family income.

I know I would find it boring

Indeed, my wife went back part time for her own sanity

Bonia77

Really2 wrote: »

Indeed, my wife went back part time for her own sanity

And yours

inspector_monkfish

Really2 wrote: »

Maybe she goes back and gets a promotion.:);)

Some women do go back to work some don't, Most people who don't go back prepare for it before (just like the ones that do) by moving etc.

Hypothetical debates do not help really help as there is clear evidence some women go back to work after having children.

exactly
for some it is not always possible though
if they cannot arrange childcare for example, or their job just simply is not there for them anymore, if they have left it too long to go back - not all are fortunate enough to get good maternity package


and not all are savvy enough to budget for the loss of 1 salary, plus the extra mouth to feed.... :rolleyes:

and not all babies are planned of course !! :eek:

olly300

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Don't think there is any doubt London has FTBs, the question is does it have enough to continue to support current prices.

There are a few questions that immediately jump out about your people here and how representative they are.

1. If there are enough couples around this age able to buy in the next couple of years, then why is the average FTB age much higher than this (and why has it been climbing throughout the 2000s?)

Lots of people don't settle down until later.

And I know many singles and couples who come to London to experience living and working in the capital but have no intention of staying particularly if they have had children so rent.

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

2. These are couples are youngish but not buying yet, it seems they will be buying in the next couple of years (lets say ave age 28-30?) - how long on average are we expecting the dual-income mortgage paying to go on for before kids come on the agenda

Most of my friends are slightly older than this.

The ones who were on these salaries found they couldn't afford the places they wanted in nicer areas in London so moved outside London to the Home Counties. (Before they tended to move to South East or East London.)

Most of the women work part-time i.e. 4 out of 5 days and the couples did actually calculate this in when they were taking out a mortgage. Those that didn't or had an unplanned pregnancy have had to take payment holidays.

There as others moved to another part of the country as soon as possible to be closer to family and to avoid their child being brought up in the London.

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

3. These are couples looking to skip out a rung on the ladder and go straight to a house presumably. If this is something that is possible in any reasonable number, what effect do we think this is going to have on the future ownership of 1 and 2 bed flats in London

What ladder?

Most of the people in London I know buy large 2 bedroom flats, smaller 2 bedroom houses or larger - 3/4 bedroom houses as their first purchase.

There are older people in London who live in flats as they don't want the upkeep of a house and garden.

I live in a 2 bedroom flat and have lived in other flats. Each place has had a least one old neighbour who has lived in a large house but has moved to the flat because of health problems or because of the death of their partner.

Pete111

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Don't think there is any doubt London has FTBs, the question is does it have enough to continue to support current prices.

There are a few questions that immediately jump out about your people here and how representative they are.

1. If there are enough couples around this age able to buy in the next couple of years, then why is the average FTB age much higher than this (and why has it been climbing throughout the 2000s?)

I don't doubt that FTBs have it tougher these days - I'm only telling you how it is in my team as a useful example

2. These are couples are youngish but not buying yet, it seems they will be buying in the next couple of years (lets say ave age 28-30?) - how long on average are we expecting the dual-income mortgage paying to go on for before kids come on the agenda.

Assuming the mortgage is in place before kids come on the agenda then this is less of an issue. Say they owe 200k at 6% and one income is 40k - thats 1k per month interest only (which many banks will allow). Switching to this for 6 months/ a year when the baby arrives still leaves over 1k to live on per month after mortgage costs and likely bills. Furthermore, many firms have enhanced maternity packages that will cusion this further and often the mother will go back to work within a year to increase houshold income.

3. These are couples looking to skip out a rung on the ladder and go straight to a house presumably. If this is something that is possible in any reasonable number, what effect do we think this is going to have on the future ownership of 1 and 2 bed flats in London
Why do you say this? Several years ago my wife and I were on a combined 75k or so and got an FTB property in London - it was a 2 bed flat.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Pete111 wrote: »

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

1. If there are enough couples around this age able to buy in the next couple of years, then why is the average FTB age much higher than this (and why has it been climbing throughout the 2000s?)

I don't doubt that FTBs have it tougher these days - I'm only telling you how it is in my team as a useful example

Yeah was just curious, your team members age is quite a bit lower than average FTB age


2. These are couples are youngish but not buying yet, it seems they will be buying in the next couple of years (lets say ave age 28-30?) - how long on average are we expecting the dual-income mortgage paying to go on for before kids come on the agenda.

Assuming the mortgage is in place before kids come on the agenda then this is less of an issue. Say they owe 200k at 6% and one income is 40k - thats 1k per month interest only (which many banks will allow). Switching to this for 6 months/ a year when the baby arrives still leaves over 1k to live on per month after mortgage costs and likely bills. Furthermore, many firms have enhanced maternity packages that will cusion this further and often the mother will go back to work within a year to increase houshold income.

This seems pretty good, and seems pretty manageable with 200k owed. tho I bought this up more in response to the post about 323k houses in Penge rather than 200k houses


3. These are couples looking to skip out a rung on the ladder and go straight to a house presumably. If this is something that is possible in any reasonable number, what effect do we think this is going to have on the future ownership of 1 and 2 bed flats in London
Why do you say this? Several years ago my wife and I were on a combined 75k or so and got an FTB property in London - it was a 2 bed flat.

Basically I wasn't really sure who was going to be buying the 1 and 2bed flats in places like Shepherds Bush and Camberwell (and anywhere really), at what age they were going to be buying them (given the ave age of FTBs) and how long they would own them for. (if, as Chucky says earlier, 323k houses in places like Penge are affordable to FTB couples - and your work colleages seem to suggest they are)

I presume you've had a fair bit of equity built up in your flat now, if you bought a while back?

it thinks my message is too short even though i just wrote a lot up there so I have to write this here

Really2

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

if, if, if
and not all babies are planned of course !! :eek:

Good thing is nature give you ate least a few months notice.

i fail to see your point yes for some it is not, for some it is.

You are more likely to find child care than not but that is beside the point.

The point is a lot of women return to work. If they don't people adjust to suit.

It as been like that for years now, and is now most probably more common place.

I am failing to see what you are trying to get at. Some might not go back, some might on more money.

It all goes to make the average and the average is what supports the market not the two extremes.

inspector_monkfish

really2 wrote: »

good thing is nature give you ate least a few months notice.

I fail to see your point yes for some it is not, for some it is.

You are more likely to find child care than not but that is beside the point.

The point is a lot of women return to work. If they don't people adjust to suit.

It as been like that for years now, and is now most probably more common place.

I am failing to see what you are trying to get at. Some might not go back, some might on more money.

It all goes to make the average and the average is what supports the market not the two extremes.

dont bother then really
i forgot what an argumentative finicky nutter you are!!

if you cant see it, dont worry about it.

Harry_Powell

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

dont bother then really
i forgot what an argumentative finicky nutter you are!!

if you cant see it, dont worry about it.

He came, he saw, he capitulated.

Really2

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

d
i forgot what an argumentative finicky nutter you are!!

Now now,
Just because I did not base an arguments on if's, it is no need to get in a strop.

I was not being finicky I was just pointing out it was more sensible to take what the majority of people did rather then the few at the periphery.

We can all do a "what if" argument but it adds little if you don't take in to account what the average person does and will do.

It could be different for all of us on a personal level but the market does not change because of any one of us.

Now go back in to your paddy, your only upset becasue I got the inflation thread up before you.;):D