London home 'needs £93,000 wage'

Really2

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

(if the high urban eaners are all living in small towns pushing prices up there then who is keeping the urban prices high?)

That was kind of my point on the "city of London"

the_ash_and_the_oak

Really2 wrote: »

That was kind of my point on the "city of London"

Honestly I really don't think you can use the few thousand flats (many of which will be company owned imo) of the City itself in isolation to prove any kind of point in any direction

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

That was kind of my point on the "city of London"

City if London is moot Really, its small, its a square mile and predominantly not OO. My guess is most is coporate ownership..broken down how I don't know. People don't really expects to live (or want to live) within the Square Mile. Its the huge commute for normal people into the City or central London that is a problem.

Incidently, I have had lots of clients (when clerking) who live in very central areas. Perhaps there is an arguement to selling off any remaining state owned housing in Zones One and two (or indeed three and four) to the highest bidder. if distance etc isn't an issue people could live anywhere...

the_ash_and_the_oak

tbh its good any kind of debate came out of this article because whether you are bullish or bearish its not a good article and has made bad comparisons imo (I don't think there's an inherent problem w comparing ave salary w ave price - esp how this changes over time - but not in the way this article has done)

Really2

But you must agree those flats are most probably inhabited by people who work in the city also (probably some of the highest earners, which kind of goes back to my point)

OK my take on London (overcrowding.)

Highest paid or richest buy closest to the center.
The highest paid who can not afford those prices live further out.
Pushing up the property price but not increasing the local wage where they now live.

The next highest paid then live in the next area out, and so on and so on.

I just find the argument a bit confusing as local wage is linked or it is not (like the article)
I can't say this discussion as made my view any clearer either.:)

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

OK my take on London (overcrowding.)

Highest paid or richest buy closest to the center.
The highest paid who can not afford those prices live further out.
Pushing up the property price but not increasing the local wage where they now live.

No! thats wht I was trying to explain....and I'm not sure it is in any city centre, which must all ahave relatively central ''poor'' areas....hence terms like ''inner city school'' used derogatively rather than geographically, and ''sink estate''. That these areas exisit doesn't necessarily mean low cost housing is any more availble to buy for the ''normal'' worker though.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Really2 wrote: »

But you must agree those flats are most probably inhabited by people who work in the city also (probably some of the highest earners, which kind of goes back to my point)

Actually I don't (tho I don't disagree either).

Really2 wrote: »

OK my take on London (overcrowding.)

Highest paid or richest buy closest to the center.
The highest paid who can not afford those prices live further out.
Pushing up the property price but not increasing the local wage where they now live.

The next highest paid then live in the next area out, and so on and so on.

I just find the argument a bit confusing as local wage is linked or it is not (like the article)
I can't say this discussion as made my view any clearer either.:)

I don't actually think London works the way you've detailed above tbh (many of the higher earners prefer to live out of London and London also doesn't work in that concentric picture you've outlined.

My other problem with this is that we now have a picture with lots of areas where the ave house price is disproportionately higher than salary because of commuting, but don't have anything on the other side. (I justwent back and edited this bit because itwas wrong way round)

Area A is disproportionately higher prices than ave salary because prices driven up by people working in Area B.
But the ave price in Area B is also disproportionately higher than ave salary because the people who live here work in Area C

but do we not have to have somewhere where the ave price is disproportionately lower than it would be to balance this out - or otherwise we have to say that local wage is relevant everywhere again?

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

if distance etc isn't an issue people could live anywhere...

That is kind of the point about "local wages"

I now live closer to work but the average house price where I live are less than where I used to live.
But the average wages in my new area are more by about 30%.
I have not changed my job in any in any of the time living in the areas so the average wages where I have lived as remained unchanged.
But that can not be said for house prices.

Hope this is in some way understandable as I am now frying my own brain.

In short I suppose I am saying"local wage" can mean nothing some times (well until their not so well paid children come to start to look for housing)

the_ash_and_the_oak

Also I know we've been here before and disagreed but imo if there was overcrowding in London rental prices wouldn't have stayed static over the last 7 years

Bonia77

Really2 wrote: »

But you must agree those flats are most probably inhabited by people who work in the city also (probably some of the highest earners, which kind of goes back to my point)

OK my take on London (overcrowding.)

Highest paid or richest buy closest to the center.
The highest paid who can not afford those prices live further out.
Pushing up the property price but not increasing the local wage where they now live.

The next highest paid then live in the next area out, and so on and so on.

I just find the argument a bit confusing as local wage is linked or it is not (like the article)
I can't say this discussion as made my view any clearer either.:)

It's actually the other way around, ecpecially around Square Mile! I don't think that any of the richest paid want to live there.