How many would buy more than one house if prices fell 60%?

Blacklight

FATBALLZ wrote: »

He should have it printed on his loo roll like I do.

If you did that you'd see clearly that rises have been exponential since records began. Just slice it in half and alter the scale and the graph looks just as it does now. In another fifty years it'll look the same and 2009 will just be a little blip.

What people fail to consider is that house owners income rises more than 3% per year. People get promoted, move jobs, etc.

Returning to the bacteria analogy - the reason an exponential rise in dividing bacteria won't cover the Earth isn't lack of food, it's the fact that the Earth gets bigger at just the same rate. It's called equilibrium.

twadge_face

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I would just buy the one house, thanks very much. I would spend any remaining cash on vastly more interesting things such as travel, further study, new hobbies etc.

Exactly. That makes more sense.

You've saved a load of money on a home.

Why buy the saving on several properties? It's a lame, illiquid asset, reliant of government props to make it a worthwhile investment.

I think the PROPER long-term graphs of house prices are more interesting and perhaps more relevant. The late-70s to the present day does not reflect proper long-term economics.

This chart I found quite intriguing. Compare the section from 1950 - 2010 (which would be an exponential line) to the LONG long term. OK, so it is Amsterdam, not UK, but I do not know where to get such figures. But I post this so as to present an "alternative perspective".


Look at it, Blacklight. I mean, really look at it!

twadge_face

Blacklight wrote: »

If you did that you'd see clearly that rises have been exponential since records began.

When did records begin?

Returning to the bacteria analogy - the reason an exponential rise in dividing bacteria won't cover the Earth isn't lack of food, it's the fact that the Earth gets bigger at just the same rate. It's called equilibrium.

Earth gets bigger at thee same rate as an exponential rise in dividing bacteria? Really?

By divide, do you mean MULTIPLY?

Blacklight

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Look at it, Blacklight. I mean, really look at it!

Bob on. It shows exactly what I've been saying. Adjusted for inflation house prices aren't anything out of the ordinary.

Blacklight

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

When did records begin?

1952 - Nationwide

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Earth gets bigger at thee same rate as an exponential rise in dividing bacteria? Really?

Obviously you've never had an above inflation pay rise. Do you really think that people earn £60k+ with 3% pa rises?

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

By divide, do you mean MULTIPLY?

Yes. You must have failed biology (perhaps the reason you've never had a decent pay rise?)

brit1234

ukcarper wrote: »

If you project the price at 2002 which is about £125k through to now which is £165k that’s a drop of less than 25% so why insist on 50%.

?????
What are you on?

Average price has always been about 3-4 times single income. I don't really care if you give me two prices within the bubble period.

To buy the cheapest properties in my area I need about 6-7 times my salary with a large deposit.

Thats why I insist on 50% off from peak to normal.

ukcarper

Since when it wasn't when I first bought in 1972 in might have been at the bottom of the crash in 1995. I take you back to midway between bottom and peak but you seem to want to use bottom as normal.

twadge_face

Blacklight wrote: »

1952 - Nationwide

Thanks. So you'll see how 1952-2010 is actually a small date range in economic terms. I would like to look over the previous 250 years as that would be a tad more meaningful.

Obviously you've never had an above inflation pay rise. Do you really think that people earn £60k+ with 3% pa rises?

Ooh miaow! Get down boy. Can I humbly suggest you don't judge folk you don't know anything about, mmkay? You've made a non-sequitur assertion which is not relevant to this discussion. Let's keep it on track, please.

Oh and your comment about me failing biology was (ironically) somewhat off the mark but I won't go into my personal circumstances. I'm certainly not what you assumed in the above comments! I was trying to stir you up, sure. But you are rude, boy.

ukcarper

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Thanks. So you'll see how 1952-2010 is actually a small date range in economic terms. I would like to look over the previous 250 years as that would be a tad more meaningful.

Ooh miaow! Get down boy. Can I humbly suggest you don't judge folk you don't know anything about, mmkay? You've made a non-sequitur assertion which is not relevant to this discussion. Let's keep it on track, please.

Oh and your comment about me failing biology was (ironically) somewhat off the mark but I won't go into my personal circumstances. I'm certainly not what you assumed in the above comments! I was trying to stir you up, sure. But you are rude, boy.

you really think it would be useful to go back to 1760

twadge_face

ukcarper wrote: »

you really think it would be useful to go back to 1760

I'd be interested in seeing the true long-term, yes.

Why disregard the bigger picture?