London home 'needs £93,000 wage'

Really2

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

i understood really2 to be talking about the actual entire City of London, rather than just the financial district, known as 'The City'

because as you say, their aren't many actual places to live around there, and those that are there will just be company appartments above offices

unless i've got the wrong end of the stick

On the ONS site their is the district of "City of London" which as a average wage of over £50K.
I presumed that included living area not just the financial district.

So striping out the wages and house prices within that district, if that makes sense.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Really2 wrote: »

On the ONS site their is the district of "City of London" which as a average wage of over £50K.
I presumed that included living area not just the financial district.

So striping out the wages and house prices within that district, if that makes sense.

Well this is back to the original situation then. Stripping out 340,000 people's salaries but only removing around 5000 homes at a guess?

chucknorris

There a few things that stick out to me in the linked report:

1. Someone buying a 362,000 property is not likely to be a single FTB so will likely have some equity in their existing property (obviously excludes anyone who bought in recent years of course).

2. If the average London wage is £26,000 then it includes a lot of low paid workers that would not be buying a property at this value.

3. There are plenty of decent FTB type properties at less than 362k, it might be the average house but I don't think it's the average FTB property.

Really2

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

But how do we do this? the former is easy but is the latter? (and what proportion of city workers live outside London and in commuterbelt?)

But people on here always link affordability with local wage. (like the example I gave earlier)
So i presumed the area had the highest property prices as it had the highest wages.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

On the ONS site their is the district of "City of London" which as a average wage of over £50K.
I presumed that included living area not just the financial district.

So striping out the wages and house prices within that district, if that makes sense.

I think the discussion above exaplain why this is not straight forward as it might seem.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

But people on here always link affordability with local wage. (like the example I gave earlier)
So i presumed the area had the highest property prices as it had the highest wages.

A logical, but false presumption, sadly, the maths would be much more understandable if so!

the_ash_and_the_oak

Really2 wrote: »

But people on here always link affordability with local wage. (like the example I gave earlier)
So i presumed the area had the highest property prices as it had the highest wages.

Well I see where you are coming from but I'm not sure that this is actually true (for a start I just looked on rightmove at EC3 and EC4 and I can only find flats - because there are no houses).

I'm not really sure how much mileage we're going to get from stripping out 5000 places from a city with a population of 8 million.

lostinrates

I think its hard for people who haven't spent a lot of time in london, or indeed the City:) to picture. Which, may well be an awful lot of people.

For hose that don't perhaps we can more clearly illustrate the disconnect that can exist between ''The City'' and the rest of London? Its not just geographical: although many of my London friends might never have been to the City beyond a meal in Brick Lane, a trip to Spittal fields or something like that. Most of DH's collegues don't live in the City, but commute from other Zone 2 locations. The partners tend to live in The Royal Boroughs, St Johns wood type areas, or Chiswick-y type places....some of which might be further from the Coty than the younger/lower paid workers live...but offer houses.

At the weekend the City is pretty ''dead'', because the people with money to spend ar spending in other, aras, like the West End.

Before anyone comments , I'm deliberately choosing stereotypical alternatives to clarify for non-Londoners.

The Postcodes give some clue, but these are often dated. Think of East Enders, an east of City but inner city imaginary location. East of City and EC locations then became quite fashionable: mainly because young arty types could afford them...which pushed the prices up!

I'm sure other people can better this attempt though.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

A logical, but false presumption, sadly, the maths would be much more understandable if so!

Indeed, so it goes with what I thought local wage as little to no connection to house prices.
In modern society most people commute and that is just as valid where I live as the centre of London.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

Indeed, so it goes with what I thought local wage as little to no connection to house prices.
In modern society most people commute and that is just as valid where I live as the centre of London.

Of course, this is true. But the costs and time spent commuting vary with the size of city I guess. As I was saying about the 15 hours free childcare thing: it would only really cover the time to get to work for many people!