London home 'needs £93,000 wage'

inspector_monkfish

Really2 wrote: »

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.:D

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

not stropping dude.

i iz juzz not az blinkered az you iz !!

Really2

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

not stropping dude.

i iz juzz not az blinkered az you iz !!

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

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

Now considering you are stating one off posibillitys and iff's on this thread I would say you were actually being more blinkered than I am.

The majority of 2+ beadroom houses are purchased by a couples wage nowadays.
Also the majority go back to work after having a child and indeed want too.
I am not arguing if it is right or wrong, but it is the norm. I hardly see that as being blinkered.

I like some of your posts but you don't like people disagreeing with you do you.;)

inspector_monkfish

Really2 wrote: »

Now considering you are stating one off posibillitys and iff's on this thread I would say you were actually being more blinkered than I am.

The majority of 2+ beadroom houses are purchased by a couples wage nowadays.
Also the majority go back to work after having a child and indeed want too.
I am not arguing if it is right or wrong, but it is the norm. I hardly see that as being blinkered.

I like some of your posts but you don't like people disagreeing with you do you.;)

its not about disagreeing
its about seeing things from all angles dear boy

i wouldn't say the 'majority' go back to work immediately after having a child. and not always to the same job.
for example, my wife has a totally different job now, than before we had kids.


i'd say its you that doesn't like it when things are pointed out that dont match up with what you portray as the 'average'

Pete111

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Pete111 wrote: »

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

Yep....But not as much as we did in Sept 07 when we moved to Kent and rented it out rather than sold it

Doh!

Really2

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

1)its not about disagreeing its about seeing things from all angles dear boy

2)i wouldn't say the 'majority' go back to work immediately after having a child. and not always to the same job.
for example, my wife has a totally different job now, than before we had kids.


3)i'd say its you that doesn't like it when things are pointed out that dont match up with what you portray as the 'average'

1) well you stated only stated reasons why people would not go back, thats not all angles,

2)Never said they would "go back to work immediately" or to the same job.
But you have just said yourself your wife is back working, I presume that job brings in a wage and you have adjusted to life to accommodate that. (that was my point, people do that when they have children, be it move, work part time et.c etc.)

3)No, I am happy for anything to be pointed out, but I like to think lateral.
So for your 1 person who cant return to work (your point) there will be some one who returns to work in a higher paid job. Both are extremes that help form an average, but they are never the majority or norm.

My opinion is always based on looking at both sides and going some where in-between.
If I just looked at negative impact reasons I would not be able to form a balanced view would I, or would I?

There is no need to get knarky just because I thought what you had posted was not very balanced.
If you are "pointing something out to me" perhaps you would have the decency to explain why your view is more relevant rather than doing a few put downs with smillies:) on the end.

inspector_monkfish

Really2 wrote: »

1) well you stated only stated reasons why people would not go back, thats not all angles,

2)Never said they would "go back to work immediately" or to the same job.
But you have just said yourself your wife is back working, I presume that job brings in a wage and you have adjusted to life to accommodate that. (that was my point, people do that when they have children, be it move, work part time et.c etc.)

3)No, I am happy for anything to be pointed out, but I like to think lateral.
So for your 1 person who cant return to work (your point) there will be some one who returns to work in a higher paid job. Both are extremes that help form an average, but they are never the majority or norm.

My opinion is always based on looking at both sides and going some where in-between.
If I just looked at negative impact reasons I would not be able to form a balanced view would I, or would I?

There is no need to get knarky just because I thought you point was not very balanced.
If you are "pointing some thing out to me" perhaps you would have the decency to explain why your view is more relevant rather than doing a few put downs with smillies:) on the end.

1. no i didn't.
i said 'maybe she wont be able to back' - that alone can throw up a multitude of different angles and reasons

2. yes, but my wife left it 6 years

3. who is knarky now?? :cool:

Really2

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

3. who is knarky now?? :cool:

You........:D;) (why would I need to get knarky all I have done is disagree that your point was balanced.)

inspector_monkfish

Really2 wrote: »

You........:D;)

i take that as your white flag.
thank-you and good night.

Really2

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

i take that as your white flag.
thank-you and good night.

You need to win don't you IM (your lack of backing up and put downs tell me that )
(The..... was because the post was to short)

You can take it how you like but if it makes you feel better to have scored an imaginary victory you can think that. I am in no virtual battle so you can make yourself feel god by thinking that if you like.

I was trying to find out what your point was and how that related to the overall picture.
Perhaps it was more of a red flag (or cape) for you.

inspector_monkfish

Really2 wrote: »

You need to win don't you IM (your lack of backing up and put downs tell me that )
(The..... was because the post was to short)

You can take it how you like but if it makes you feel better you have scored a victory, you can think that I am in no virtual battle.

I was trying to find out what your point was and how that related to the overall picture.
Perhaps it was more of a red flag (or cape) for you.

what lack of backing up?
what do u need to know, that you clearly can't work out?

seems to me you are just being awkward, and 'pretending' not to understand - which is a shame, as i always thought you were one of the smarter posters on here.