It's Grim up north, Well not if you are a FTB. Home buyers 'younger in north'

kabayiri

As anyone who reads Private Eye will know, the true phrase quoted by the OP should be :-
It's Grim up north (London)

Graham_Devon

Blacklight wrote: »

It was merely to demonstrate that the bottom end of the market is within reach of even the lowest paid. In reality, who buys a property until they're in a secure job with reasonable security, prospects and invariabley a better wage than £11.5k?

The point is that the market is balanced as it is.

As I said, it was class.

With 2 people, both working 39 hours a week, on minimum wage, they would come home with just shy of 18k between them.

They would probably get loaned around 55k on their pre tax wage. And thats WITH a deposit.

Would have to be bottom of the market. Really scraping the bottom of it!

I just found it amusing that someone would think the market is open to those sorts of people, and assume they can save a 10% deposit on those types of wages! Maybe if they live rent free seperately with mum and dad...

nembot

Blacklight wrote: »

Nobody's priced out of the market.

The prices, if anything, are a bit lower than they should be.

Seriously, are you for real???

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I said, it was class.

With 2 people, both working 39 hours a week, on minimum wage, they would come home with just shy of 18k between them.

They would probably get loaned around 55k on their pre tax wage. And thats WITH a deposit.

Would have to be bottom of the market. Really scraping the bottom of it!

I just found it amusing that someone would think the market is open to those sorts of people, and assume they can save a 10% deposit on those types of wages! Maybe if they live rent free seperately with mum and dad...

I think the OP's point is you are closer to affordability even on the minimum wage in the north. So anyone on a better job sticks a good chance of being able to purchase,

Could you even rent in the SE on the minimum wage?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I said, it was class.

With 2 people, both working 39 hours a week, on minimum wage, they would come home with just shy of 18k between them.

They would probably get loaned around 55k on their pre tax wage. And thats WITH a deposit.

Would have to be bottom of the market. Really scraping the bottom of it!

I just found it amusing that someone would think the market is open to those sorts of people, and assume they can save a 10% deposit on those types of wages! Maybe if they live rent free seperately with mum and dad...

buying a house wouldn't be for them then... unless they starting earning more or were able to find a way of saving a deposit.

i'm not sure what you get for £100k would be all that suitable for two people though... is £100k enough to find a place for 2 people in the North of England?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

buying a house wouldn't be for them then... unless they starting earning more or were able to find a way of saving a deposit.

i'm not sure what you get for £100k would be all that suitable for two people though... is £100k enough to find a place for 2 people in the North of England?

Only the top 70% of earners should have homes.

The 30% of peasants should rent.

I have learnt wisely

Really2

chucky wrote: »

buying a house wouldn't be for them then... unless they starting earning more or were able to find a way of saving a deposit.

i'm not sure what you get for £100k would be all that suitable for two people though... is £100k enough to find a place for 2 people in the North of England?

I would say yes mate, most of the big towns and citys north of Birmingham will have property well within that range.

PS
Quick RM search shows you can get 4 beds in stoke for less than that and that is not that far north at all:eek:

ukcarper

Don't now blackburn but foundd this

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-22582729.html?sortByPriceDescending=false&minPrice=90000&maxPrice=100000&displayPropertyType=houses&oldDisplayPropertyType=houses&pageNumber=1&backToListURL=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2Ffind.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DREGION%255E167%26insId%3D4%26sortByPriceDescending%3Dfalse%26minPrice%3D90000%26maxPrice%3D100000%26displayPropertyType%3Dhouses%26oldDisplayPropertyType%3Dhouses

Blacklight

nembot wrote: »

10 years ago, 96k would of got your a decent place.

If we look at prices adjusted for inflation, it should be around £135'ish now - but this type of property is now around 230k, due to the utter madness and greed of the last decade.

Can't wait till it all falls on it's a-r-s-e.

Do you think that peoples wages rise at the same rate as inflation? Let me rephrase that:

Do you think that homeowners, with secure careers or jobs in skilled labor are satisfied if their wages rise at 3% from the age of 18 to 65?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Only the top 70% of earners should have homes.

The 30% of peasants should rent.

I have learnt wisely

No Graham, that's not what anyone said, that's what you're saying -

this exactly what what Blacklight said below.

Blacklight wrote: »

Couple X both earning minimum wage (£11.5k) could borrow 4x joint income to get a mortgage of £92k. With a 5% deposit that's a £97k property. Not a great property, but they're on the minimum wage.

please don't try and twist this thread into the Graham Devon show otherwise the desperate housewife Emy will have to come and stick up for you again...:eek: