We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Housing Shortage Timebomb
Comments
-
blue_monkey you're like a compilation of every bear meme going, except you're about 6 months late.
I know.
These new bears keep popping up and recycling the same old bear myths that have been comprehensively demolished time after time after time.
Don't they watch the news, read this board occasionally, have the faintest idea how much things have changed since a year ago?
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Mr.Knightley wrote: »Bear Myth...yeah...right.
:D
Much as I hate to be pedantic.......:D
All you've done is prove that Gold is in a bubble, or housing is undervalued, or both.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Mr.Knightley wrote: »What it shows is House Prices were in a bubble compared to gold.
They're now back closer to the long term average...if such a thing exists.
If gold is, as you say, in a bubble...then perhaps houses are too...
In all seriousness.....
They tend to be countercyclical to each other. Recessions cause a flight to gold, and also crash house prices. Booms see housing and equities outperforming the traditional safe haven of gold.
But if we what we are currently seeing is in fact the beginnings of an "inflationary dash to assets", or "crack up boom", we may well see a decade or more of previously rare correlation amongst opposing types of hard asset classes that are rarely in synch with each other.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Mr.Knightley wrote: »An inflationary dash to assets, could also be interpreted as a potential bubble!? no?
Depends on whether you feel hard assets are a better store of wealth than paper currency.
Your gold post indicates you do.;)The financial industry didn't expect the correlation to increase so much during the recession. It meant previous stress tests weren't sufficient.
It's a brave new world.
House prices up. Gold up. Equities up.
Pass the popcorn.....:cool:House prices are correlated to disposable income, disposable income is high due to (relatively) cheap energy and products coming out of china. .
House prices are right on long term mean trend, and significantly below long term average as a percentage of after tax income.As energy prices pick up, as supply runs low, house prices will be impacted
As energy prices pick up, Aberdeen house prices will be moonbound...:D“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
In an effort to be a little nicer, I will smile politely and move along quietly. 0
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
..., and significantly below long term average as a percentage of after tax income.
Sorry I don't buy this statement. The longer term trends you use are based on single incomes, figures today use household income. Your not comparing like for like.
Please don't quote CML figures because all that does is tell you the % of income those buying a house spend on mortgage payments instead of the actual % of income an 'average' household would spend. These two are quite different.0 -
stueyhants wrote: »Sorry I don't buy this statement. The longer term trends you use are based on single incomes, figures today use household income. Your not comparing like for like.
Please don't quote CML figures because all that does is tell you the % of income those buying a house spend on mortgage payments instead of the actual % of income an 'average' household would spend. These two are quite different.
The CML figures are fact though, the average mortgage today is well below the long term average.
You're trying to confuse the issue by getting back into the single versus joint, or now versus then, arguments. And if you remember, we already extablished that houses today are not all that different from in the early 50's as an income multiple of full time males, whether you use mean or median. Around 15% or so higher today, but also with a lot more facilities. (central heating, double glazing, etc)
Besides, the average income of all people is irrelevant.
When we only build 33% of the houses needed, then only the top earning 33% of households need to be able to afford to buy a house.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
Besides, the average income of all people is irrelevant.
.
No but it is relevant. You put people down by saying stop moaning about high house prices, they are just as affordable now than at anytime in history.
This is complete rubbish. The affordability stuff you qoute is based on a smaller % of the population (higher incomes). So it can not be compared against long term trends
Houses are obviously affordable to some but not to the average person and so your basic argument is not true0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »When we only build 33% of the houses needed, then only the top earning 33% of households need to be able to afford to buy a house.
So what happens to everyone else? Sod 'em? We are going back 80 years to when only the elite and rich were able to buy a home to live in. Is that really the way forward?
This is why we have a shortage of social housing - because people like us who could more than afford a mortgage if houses were half the price they are, now have to rely on social housing. Social housing that could be for someone else in more need.
Mind you, most people are better off in Social Housing anyway. Should anything happen to my husbands job or should he fall sick or have to take a lower paid job we can get some/all our rent paid for us and not have the fear of losing our home like we would if we had a mortgage. And if you lose your home because you've not paid the mortgage they have no pbligation to help you.0 -
stueyhants wrote: »No but it is relevant. You put people down by saying stop moaning about high house prices, they are just as affordable now than at anytime in history.
No, I frequently state that there have been times when they have been more affordable. But there have also been times when they have been much less affordable.
The bears on this site try to portray that prices today, or in 2007, are less affordable than at any time in history. Which is complete nonsense.
They also try to portray the periods at trough's, such as the late 90's, as being normal, when in fact prices were at once in a lifetime lows then.This is complete rubbish. The affordability stuff you qoute is based on a smaller % of the population (higher incomes). So it can not be compared against long term trends
And what about when 100% of housing was owned by just 10% of the population, as little as 100 years ago. How affordable do you think houses were then?
Bears like to pick arbitrary points in time to manipulate the figures.
For example.....
Interest rate averages from 1970's onwards. Only including the three highest rate decades in history. Whilst ignoring the previous 350 years of rates below 5% on average.
Income multiples from the 70's onwards, when prices were depressed by the highest interest rates in history. Housing was so unnafordable just a century ago, that 90% of people could never afford to buy, yet this is never mentioned.Houses are obviously affordable to some but not to the average person and so your basic argument is not true
But the average person has rarely been able to buy the average house. The incomes of buyers have always been higher than the incomes of the total population.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards