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

StevieJ

nembot wrote: »

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

Have you never thought that they may have been cheap 10 years ago?

kabayiri

True northerners don't bother with mortgages.

They buy their house with cash, if the prices go up it just means you have to sell a bit more gear on the street, to generate the readies.

[disclaimer: the above statement may be factually inaccurate but one has an image to maintain ]

carolt

What's interesting about this thread is that we all take for granted (a) that house prices are cheaper in some parts of the country - always have been, always will be.

Yet we also take for granted (b) that the minimum wage is the same across the country.

Clearly a should not lead to b - it's the reason many London jobs come with London Weighting; it's the reason why when my 2 eldest brothers were at Oxford in the 70's they got the same grant as London students - higher than the rest of the country (as Oxford rents basically = London rents). Doubt very much if that still applies though! For those few students lucky enough to still get grants.

Clearly there is an argument for wages esp minimum wage to vary more to allow for an equal standard of living for the poorest across the country.

kabayiri

carolt wrote: »

Clearly there is an argument for wages esp minimum wage to vary more to allow for an equal standard of living for the poorest across the country.

I'm not so sure Carol.

I remember seeing the documentaries pre-2008, Peter Snow and his son did one I think.

In it they argued the case for 'trickle-down'.

The theory is all these big earners in the City , and the Barristers, MPs, etc earn plenty but spend plenty, and this filters its way down the employment tree. A good example is waiters in nice restaurants getting decent tips.

Other regions of the UK don't have the benefit of these mega-income groups so much.

Thrugelmir

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.

No wonder we have consumer debt problems in this country.

twadge_face

Blacklight wrote: »

Nobody's priced out of the market.

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.

At 7% that's £658 a month. With say, £600 for bills that'll still give them about £200 disposable income per month. Not a lot, but we're talking minimum wage. It's doable.

Increase those wages to say £16k and you're looking at a better house and better quality of life.

FTB'ers being priced out of the market is a myth. The prices, if anything, are a bit lower than they should be.

Securing a loan however... different matter atm.

The 7% assumption does not take into account any variation in mortgage rates. And a two-year fix is really not a very long time in this dangerously skewed economy.

If those rates go up to, say, 13%, the monthly payment is more like £1046.

Yesterday's_edition_of_the_reputable_New_York_Times wrote:

Despite comments from Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, that he might restart his quantitative easing program in light of current economic weakness, the view among investors is growing that interest rates here will rise further, along with higher inflation and Britain’s increased risk profile.

In a speech this year, Andrew Haldane, the executive director of financial stability at the Bank of England, warned about how vulnerable Britain was to a rate increase, pointing out that an increase of one percentage point would cause debt service costs relative to income to double, to 13 percent.

“This is a ticking time bomb,” said Nick Hopkinson of Property Portfolio Rescue, a company that assists overleveraged homeowners. “There are over 400,000 people who are in arrears with their mortgage rates the cheapest they have ever been. When rates increase, a lot of people will be tipped over the edge.”

Balanced market? Right.

People buying now are taking gigantic, gigantic risks with their financial futures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/business/global/03pound.html

Pobby

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Shouldn't really come as a surprise

I live in the south east - I am from the north east where the majority of my family still are.

3 years ago my daughter and her partner bought a 2 bed house in Lower Earley cost £190k, at the same time my sister downsized to an identical 2 bed house in the north east cost £110k. This is the type of house.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-23501449.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E21721&insId=2&minBedrooms=2&maxBedrooms=2&pageNumber=1&backToListURL=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2Ffind.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DREGION%255E21721%26insId%3D2%26minBedrooms%3D2%26maxBedrooms%3D2

I know. One of my God kids has also bought the same kind of house in Lower Early. Same price as well. Mortgaged for 40 years at a grand a month. Down here in the West country I would think that £130k would be the price but heck, you would still need a few bucks coming in to do it. Kind of scares me.

When i lived up there housing never seemed desperately silly in price but now. However thinking about retiring up there. Seems to be an abundance of retirement flats at much more realistic prices.

carolt

Lower Early. What a beautifully picturesque placename.

Just googled it and found it was Lower Earley and in Reading. Not quite so picturesque... Oh well...

Pobby

I lived in old Early 30 years ago. Lovely little cottage with loads of land. Built about 1860. That was just as Lower Early was being built. Think we paid just under 15k for it.

carolt

Oh, so it is picturesque after all.

Oh good.

I think the name Reading sounded off-putting. I didn't know it had old bits.