Typical wage £20K. Typical house £150K

IveSeenTheLight

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Well firstly imo we'd have to decide the cause and effect in this scenario. i) increase in rented housing - to facilitate this drop in owner-occupancy, or ii) a drop in owner-occupancy due to credit being less widely available - and a reduced number of people being able to afford to buy

In context of the situation described above, it would be option ii)
This is the closest to how it was in the past.

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Then we could address the question of how - in a scenario where owner-occupancy dropped - the increase in rented property would be provided, either via the govt - or privately. If it was the govt then yes, they would have to buy from existing oo's (or btl's). Could the govt do this as a way of providing demand? possibly.

Again in the scenario depicted, the situation was that there were more social housing, thus it would be a requirement to increase their social stock, not private.

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

More likely imo would be that the increase in rented property would be privately owned - a decrease in owner-occupancy implies imo a reduction in demand (but reduced need to sell if rates remain low for current owners) meaning more likely that a signif % of currently owned homes wouldn't be sold when the need to move arises, they would be let out

Totally agree this is the likely result in reality, but the questions were raised as to how they could be answered in order to see a return to the situation it was previously i.e. 30 years ago.
This would require more social housing.

Upon reflection, it would appear that what is being suggested is that property becomes less available for ownership with only the elite being able to do so.
Doesn't seem very progressive to me. Much better that properties are available for ownership and a personal choice is available as whether to take on the debt to be an owner or choose to rent.

the_ash_and_the_oak

I suppose carolts suggestion was that "it was better 30 years ago" does mean what you say - an increase in social housing

But I think the question I prefer to ask isn't "was the past better?" but more one of the owner-occupancy level in general, is it good it has risen, would it be good for it to continue to rise, and what would be the best kind of level for it to be at

the_ash_and_the_oak

Tangentially related to a question often asked here - "should everyone be able to own"

IveSeenTheLight

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

I suppose carolts suggestion was that "it was better 30 years ago" does mean what you say - an increase in social housing

But I think the question I prefer to ask isn't "was the past better?" but more one of the owner-occupancy level in general, is it good it has risen, would it be good for it to continue to rise, and what would be the best kind of level for it to be at

You've kinda asked this question on other threads before and I'd rather not let the topic be drawn away from the questions posed.

For this reason, I'm out (awaiting responses to orginally posed questions)

Max_Headroom_3

Wow, I turn my back for a day or two and my little post has a 10 page tail! :eek:

I think sometimes one has to ignore all the facts figures and data and simply take a common sense viewpoint. I took the view three or four years ago that prices were unsustainable looking at the cost of houses and the money being earned.

It was.

I currently take the view that "normal peoples" houses are not yet anywhere near "normal peoples" salary range.

Now I'm sure plenty of people can come up with plenty of data to "prove me wrong", just as they did before to prove that house prices could only rise.

Time will tell, just as it did in the boom time when the only way was up, according to many.