Typical wage £20K. Typical house £150K

bmunky7

ses6jwg wrote: »

I just graduated from University in May 2:1 degree in Politics & History OK not vocational but a good degree from a good University currently earning 19.5k p.a.

Most of my friends are on similar wages and some of them did things like engineering, physics, optometry.

I graduated 4 years ago and started on the same, now it's way way higher. That's what education + experience brings. What's your point caller?

the_ash_and_the_oak

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Will it?
Is it a problem at the moment for the number of properties that are not of sufficient quality?
I know a number of properties left empty that could be refurbished or sold on to be redeveloped but have not been?
Why is that?

If you were referring to people who are trying to sell and have a less competative property, the market will set the rate at some point assuming an agreement between the seller and buyer can be met

When transactions levels are high most types of property are easily sellable/buyable - imo when transaction levels are low non-quality property suffers disproportionately - though this is more a question of accessibility of finance rather than cost of finance per se

the_ash_and_the_oak

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I can foresee that prices could still rise and the percentage of OO's drops.
I don't believe they are directly co-related.

We'll have to disagree on this one - oo stats falling would be a consequence of a reduction of demand imo

skiTTish

nearlynew wrote: »

I love it when HPI cheerleaders come out with this one.

I bet you also think it's bad when someone gets repossessed because they can't pay their mortgage and that the government should help them stay in their house.

My post pointed out that people on low income have never been able to afford to buy houses and that that's the way it is and the way it should be !!
Why would anyone ever aspire for greater things if anyone on a low wage could afford everything they wanted ?!?!
We were on a low wage in social housing ,we were not happy so hubby retrained and changed career,I got a job,doubled our income and now we have bought a house ,we didn't sit about whinging that hubby worked hard but we couldn't afford to buy ,we just did something about it and are happier for it .

treliac

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

cheap finance=expensive houses that cheapness has to be accessible otherwise there aren't enough people borrowing the larger sums that cheap rates allows - to facilitate higher prices

cheap finance=expensive houses = over extended borrowing = potential for repossession.

carolt

skiTTish wrote: »

My post pointed out that people on low income have never been able to afford to buy houses and that that's the way it is and the way it should be !!
Why would anyone ever aspire for greater things if anyone on a low wage could afford everything they wanted ?!?!
We were on a low wage in social housing ,we were not happy so hubby retrained and changed career,I got a job,doubled our income and now we have bought a house ,we didn't sit about whinging that hubby worked hard but we couldn't afford to buy ,we just did something about it and are happier for it .

Why should it be like that?

Should suggests you think it is better - why is it better that some people can't own a home?

We need people to do less well paid jobs - is it fair they should have the double whammy of less pay and no housing?

If it was possible to rent securely, then I'd agree with you - no-one has a right to own a house, but everyone does have a basic right to a secure roof over their heads ie shelter. In the absence of social housing - which I think we all agree doesn't exist for new entrants, except for teenagers who choose to get themselves pregnant - and any security of tenure or rental guarantee if renting privately, then everyone, whatever their wage, SHOULD be able to buy a home. A society of homeowners (rather than BTL landlords) SHOULD be the preferred solution - providing security, a return to community values, etc.

In fact, now I come to think of it, the merits of greater home ownership are probably the only point that I agree with Maggie Thatcher on. If not her preferred means of attaining it, ie by selling off all social housing.

nearlynew

skiTTish wrote: »

My post pointed out that people on low income have never been able to afford to buy houses and that that's the way it is and the way it should be !!
Why would anyone ever aspire for greater things if anyone on a low wage could afford everything they wanted ?!?!
We were on a low wage in social housing ,we were not happy so hubby retrained and changed career,I got a job,doubled our income and now we have bought a house ,we didn't sit about whinging that hubby worked hard but we couldn't afford to buy ,we just did something about it and are happier for it .

So what do you think about people being repossessed because they can't afford to pay the mortgage?

carolt

Presumably they think that's how it should be.

nearlynew

carolt wrote: »

Presumably they think that's how it should be.

You would think so, wouldn't you?

But no. That's not how HPI cheerleaders think.

It's a crying shame when someone who can't really afford to buy a house gets repossessed.

But when people earning a decent wage can't afford to buy a house they say it's the way it should be and some people will just never own their own house.

It's sloppy thinking and quite pathetic really.

skiTTish

nearlynew wrote: »

You would think so, wouldn't you?

But no. That's not how HPI cheerleaders think.

It's a crying shame when someone who can't really afford to buy a house gets repossessed.

But when people earning a decent wage can't afford to buy a house they say it's the way it should be and some people will just never own their own house.

It's sloppy thinking and quite pathetic really.

My god you're amazing ,you must be psychic to know me so well ?
Im so sorry I dont fit into one of your boxes !!

you really are a fool :rotfl: