Would you march for more affordable housing?

[Deleted User]

moggylover wrote: »

Ah but Scarter! Therein lies the rub! When your dad and his brothers left home at 16 it was to find WORK in London - because there was none in Devon!

What in Gods name do you expect people to do when they move to the areas with affordable housing - it is "affordable" around here for a very good reason - there is very little work and what there is seldom rises far above minimum wage! The same can be said of most of the areas of the Country that have housing that those from the SE might consider "affordable" but that many locals do not:rolleyes:

We have to persuade the Companies to move first, and some of those who have done so very well out of the last 20 odd years of cheap labour and tacky imports could also try putting some investment into starting Companies in the areas that so desperately need work. Perhaps then there would be a chance to move there - and yes, then your idea (which you will recall I said was common sense;)) would stand a chance of working very well.

That sort of investment in an area would also regenerate it in a way that none of the poncy parks and flashy new buildings provided by EU regeneration handouts are ever going to.


BTW - I live in the South West - far South West, as in Wales and almost as far West as one can go without getting very wet;) - I MOVED here from the South East (Slough) for the cheaper housing 20 years ago:D

Exactly what I've been saying - thank you!

And until that happens then those that aren't lucky enough to find both work AND a house are screwed. You can winge all you like about the price of housing in the South East, but you're better off than those that can't even get a job. What chance do they have even if house prices did crash?

Some people will be able to move out of the expensive areas AND get work. But for enough people to do it to address the problem there needs to be a massive effort to move jobs out to where :

a) Affordable housing and high unemployment is
b) Areas where it's possible to build affordable new housing

Whining at people that are lucky enough to have jobs, homes etc isn't going to help the unfortunate ones that haven't. And complaining because those that have homes that have increased drastically in value are living on the proceeds is just plain silly. That's the way the world goes around - we ALL make the best of what we get in life.

baby_boomer

Housing will be seen by the historians as New Labour's big failure. They have let down their core constituency very badly as the social housing stock has shrunk under their tenure. Instead they have thrown money at the swing voter friendly NHS in a rather haphazard fashion. And now there is even less money available for social housing.

I would support more money to be spent on social housing from a taxpayer's perspective, because current legislation requires councils to spend a fortune housing families in other accommodation, and from a social justice perspective since affordable housing is a basic requirement for society.

What were Labour MPs thinking of to let things come to this on their watch? Even now they are letting their leaders & election spin-doctors promise to ring-fence NHS & education spending which will mean other budgets are crucified (not that housing had a budget anyway ).

[Deleted User]

Emy1501 wrote: »

Could you please tell me where these 1 bed flats for 30K were 25 years ago? My Parents bought a 6 bed semi in South London for 50K 25 years ago. Now worth about 500K. I highly doubt therefore that a 1 bed flat was 30K 25 years ago especially when you could pick up in South London for that prices under 15 years ago.

Certainly. I lived in Glasgow at that time and very many FTB's were buying new flats at around £30k. The average house price back then was over £30k. I clearly remember going to view quite a few of these flats (wealthier friends were buying them) but they were out of my price range. Now they weren't luxury flats. Just the kind of flats that people with an upbrining like mine considered to be an acceptable first home. I settled for a little dump costing £6k. I seem to remember that cheap (read not-so-nice) places were around 20k back then...although you could get real bargains like mine if you were prepared to live in very-not-so-nice places.

The reality was my parents never had to borrow silly money to buy. They could afford their six bed semi on 3-4x dads wage even though he was not a professional. They also did not have to try and bring up their kids in a flat and neither did anyone else I know. Back then few people who worked and earned reasonable money had to bring their children up in flats. Mosts were able to buy at least a 2-3 bed terraced

Your parents did very well out of HPI. And no doubt you will too when you inherit the proceeds of their house sale. And somewhere nice to bring up their children into the bargain! Now what a lucky break for a non-professional worker to be able to pass on a huge inheritence to his family!

My parents didn't need to borrow silly money when they got their first home in the 50's. Which is just as well as all they were allowed to borrow was 1.5 times my dad's salary. But that was no problem. They lived in a room for 10 years while they saved a huge deposit. Their first house was £2k and their final house was sold nearly 50 years later for £230k. So they didn't make as much out of HPI as your family despite having to struggle much harder to get a home. But they moved out of London and the penalty for that is less benefit from HPI. Hmmm...hardly seems fair - maybe we should march for better HPI outside of the SE

Don't get me wrong high house prices are a part of life but lets not pretend that things were really hard 25 years ago when you started out. As I said in 96 when I started out a 10% deposit was not even 50% of wage and borrowing was about 3-4x now it would be about 80% and at 6-7x.

I'm not pretending. I'm not lying. At that time very many people (including young people) were earning upwards of £10k and could aford a £30k property by saving a smallish deposit and getting a loan of 2.5 or 3 times their salary.

However, lots of people were earning substantially less than £10k. Including me. Some missed out altogether on getting on the property ladder. Others (like me) struggled and managed to get something.

Lots of people DID struggle.

As for schools yes I do realise that but I would say that people earning good money especially well above the national average should be able to buy a property in a decent location.

You see, I don't see things quite the way you do. When I was starting out I would have liked to have a decent paid job. I'm sure many people today would be over the moon to get ANY job. Surely people that are willing to work and have a good education should be able to get a well paid job? Yet life doesn't work like that. And sometimes you have to struggle to get what you want.

Instead of the big "Oh poor hard done by me" attitude maybe it'd be better to think. "Oh well, things could be worse. At least I'm earning good money and can afford something. Imagine what it must be like for all those people with no home AND no job!".

We're stuck with the situation. We can't change it. So it's down to each and every one of us to make the best of it for ourselves and our families.

Anyway for me the time will come where property is affordable again.

Excellent. And there will always be someone that can't afford it and they'll be complaining about people like you that can. That's life

As I say debt is not wealth.

Absolutely. Although when it comes to property it has been a route to wealth for countless people (including your parents, my parents, me, all of my family). But there are no guarantees.

It is something many will find over the next 30 years when come to try and cash in their pensions. Too many are not saving for a decent pension and relying on property to save them. The problem is that too many people trying to downsize at the same time wil could problems. Unlike today where downsizing is lifestyle and not a necessity in 20-30 years time it will be for those 30-40 somethings of today who want to live for today and not for tomorrow. When they come to downsize many will become forced sellers as many will not have a pension otherwise.

That may well be the case. In this life you get cautious people and you get gamblers. Some will have pensions that will let them afford to live comfortably and they will rely on releasing equity from their house to spend on luxuries. Others will rely totally on property and may come unstuck. Others will do without a nice house because they consider saving for a pension to be more important. Others still will do without property and pension and live for today in the hope that the tax payer will keep them in their old age.

Time will tell who the winners will be. But the sheer number of pensioners in coming years will bring about changes. It's a whole new situation. A huge percentage of the population not earning. A big chunk of them relying on the tax payer to keep them alive and others very wealthy but not paying taxes.

moggylover

Yes

Emy1501 wrote: »

Could you please tell me where these 1 bed flats for 30K were 25 years ago? My Parents bought a 6 bed semi in South London for 50K 25 years ago. Now worth about 500K. I highly doubt therefore that a 1 bed flat was 30K 25 years ago especially when you could pick up in South London for that prices under 15 years ago.

The reality was my parents never had to borrow silly money to buy. They could afford their six bed semi on 3-4x dads wage even though he was not a professional. They also did not have to try and bring up their kids in a flat and neither did anyone else I know. Back then few people who worked and earned reasonable money had to bring their children up in flats. Mosts were able to buy at least a 2-3 bed terraced

Don't get me wrong high house prices are a part of life but lets not pretend that things were really hard 25 years ago when you started out. As I said in 96 when I started out a 10% deposit was not even 50% of wage and borrowing was about 3-4x now it would be about 80% and at 6-7x.

As for schools yes I do realise that but I would say that people earning good money especially well above the national average should be able to buy a property in a decent location.

Anyway for me the time will come where property is affordable again. As I say debt is not wealth. It is something many will find over the next 30 years when come to try and cash in their pensions. Too many are not saving for a decent pension and relying on property to save them. The problem is that too many people trying to downsize at the same time wil could problems. Unlike today where downsizing is lifestyle and not a necessity in 20-30 years time it will be for those 30-40 somethings of today who want to live for today and not for tomorrow. When they come to downsize many will become forced sellers as many will not have a pension otherwise.

Sorry Emy - but even in Slough it cost me £27,950 for my two bedroomed flat in 1984 and London was dearer, as were a lot of parts of Surrey and even a couple of parts of Slough (i.e. Stoke Poges, Burnham, Richings Park and other "posher" bits than Langley:D).

Not a one bedder and 26 years rather than 30 but not so very far off the guesstimate;)

moggylover

Yes

dopester wrote: »

I think what you are describing is going to feed through much sooner (not for those who are just 30ish onwards now)... with ever more baby-boomers relying on the value of their property to fund their retirement. It doesn't take many to sell at ever lower prices to drive down values of those who are not selling.

That is how markets work. The values of homes in any area can only be valued as comparable to what homes are actually selling for in the active market. Even if you're not selling, what others sell for, impacts on the value of your home.

Plus we need to remember just how many of these older owners are also in hock up to their eyeballs still having borrowed against their "equity" time and again for all the things they cannot do without now in the "certainty" that the house price would rise enough to still provide for their retirement. I could take you to about a dozen houses around here right now where such baby boomer fools are now desperate to sell - and not going to at the prices they are asking;) I'm a baby boomer myself I suppose: fortunately my parents never suffered fools (or debt) gladly and I never took on a champagne lifestyle with lemonade income:D

We really need to look at far bigger questions than just whether there is housing available and demand. If the demand is there but no-one can afford to buy then the houses will still come down in price and unless they come up with some new idea like "lifetime" mortgages instead of 25 year ones or massive wage increases occur then there is going to be a ceiling beyond which it is not possible to go.

Bootski

No

house123 wrote: »

Would you be prepared to march through London to protest in favour of more affordable housing of the right types and in the right locations? Let’s say 6 weeks before the general election?

I am in favour of more affordable housing, but we don't live in an ideal world - there are many reasons why, in the UK, there isn't enough.

Anyhow, I'd not march through London like I did against the war but maybe I felt a tad more passionate about that!

I'd take a 5 minute stroll round the common, out the back, on a hot summer's day though - if that would help:D

Emy1501

moggylover wrote: »

Sorry Emy - but even in Slough it cost me £27,950 for my two bedroomed flat in 1984 and London was dearer, as were a lot of parts of Surrey and even a couple of parts of Slough (i.e. Stoke Poges, Burnham, Richings Park and other "posher" bits than Langley:D).

Not a one bedder and 26 years rather than 30 but not so very far off the guesstimate;)

Not a 1 bed then and not 30K:rolleyes: Ive got no doubt that in central london maybe but not the average type of property really is it.

carolt

Yes

My brother bought his 1st house exactly 25 years go - a 2 bed Victorian house in Wimbledon for 45K. Quite a nice area. Equivalent now selling for about 300K.

So 30K for a 1 bed flat in Glasgow does seem rather steep, to say the least.

baileysbattlebus

carolt wrote: »

My brother bought his 1st house exactly 25 years go - a 2 bed Victorian house in Wimbledon for 45K. Quite a nice area. Equivalent now selling for about 300K.

So 30K for a 1 bed flat in Glasgow does seem rather steep, to say the least.

We lived in Scotland in the 1980's - OH worked at Edinburgh airport

our first house was a new build 3 bed terrace on the edge of Livingston - cost £23.5k (you needed a smaller deposit for a new build then) - it was about the cheapest we could find. That was in 1982.

I can well believe flats in a decent area of Glasgow were £30k in the mid 1980's - we couldn't have afforded a 1 bed flat in a decent area of Edinburgh in the early 1980's. Lots of people moved out from Glasgow and Edinburgh to new towns like Livingston - because they could afford somewhere to live.

You also have to remember there is a long tradition of people living in flats in Scotland and it doesn't seem to have the stigma that living in flats in England seems to have.

Flats were expensive then and I expect in decent areas they still are.

We're not Scottish btw - and it always surprised me how expensive flats were in the cities.

Harry_Powell

carolt wrote: »

My brother bought his 1st house exactly 25 years go - a 2 bed Victorian house in Wimbledon for 45K. Quite a nice area. Equivalent now selling for about 300K.

So 30K for a 1 bed flat in Glasgow does seem rather steep, to say the least.

£45k in 1985 is the equivalent of £107k in today's currency.
The average house price was £23,742.
The average income was £10,466.
The average mortgage loan was £20,260.
The interest rate in 1985 was 13%
Average repayment as a percentage of income was 19.9%

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/hfrtable/up02040ab.PDF