The bear case

brit1234

Exocet wrote: »

I think the more indebted one is, the frothier one gets.

Exocet

I put chucky on my ignore list. There is a difference between those bulls who get frothy at the mouth and you still can debate with and those like chucky who are frothy yet can't put any type of argument together and just result in cheap insults. On that angle I have more respects for the likes of Hamish who post flawed arguments than the likes of chucky.

Roll on the price downturns in housing.

chucky

Exocet wrote: »

Indeed I do. But one's man post is another man's froth - therefore they cancel each other out. In the end - what will be will be.

not sure about that, i guess you must be some kind of expert on the subject...

chucky

brit1234 wrote: »

Exocet

I put chucky on my ignore list. There is a difference between those bulls who get frothy at the mouth and you still can debate with and those like chucky who are frothy yet can't put any type of argument together and just result in cheap insults. On that angle I have more respects for the likes of Hamish who post flawed arguments than the likes of chucky.

Roll on the price downturns in housing.

no need to take it personal Brit - you lie, you get exposed, you get discredited and it seems to be everyone else's fault.

have you seen prices in your local area?

chin-up anyway

StevieJ

brit1234 wrote: »

Exocet

I put chucky on my ignore list. There is a difference between those bulls who get frothy at the mouth and you still can debate with and those like chucky who are frothy yet can't put any type of argument together and just result in cheap insults. On that angle I have more respects for the likes of Hamish who post flawed arguments than the likes of chucky.

Roll on the price downturns in housing.

Part of your Pycho training - Divide and Conquer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

macaque wrote: »

HAMISH_MCTAVISH


I stand by my earlier statement.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/html/houses.stm

And I stand by mine......

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/jun_2010.pdf

And why do you think that the salary of actual house buyers is £42k? That proves my point.

Because the bottom earning 30% of population do not live in owner occupied houses, and never have done. They live in social housing.

The average for house buyers is the average of only the top earning 70%. Therefore it is higher than the average of all people.

Wrong! Over the past two years, almost all the big high value chemical companies have announed plant shutdowns in the UK. There are no new chemical companies setting up in the UK.

Right! Who cares about some chemical companies. The fact remains that some companies leave and others enter the UK every year.

Some jobs are lost, and others created every year.

And the OBR has forecast unemployment to peak at 8.1% next year, then fall to 6.1% within 5 years, even with all the government cuts, as private industry expands after the recession.

Not true. The cost of doing buisness is a major factor in influencing company location. Accomodation costs are now comparable to a 40% tax on employees under the age of 40. Most young people are forced to rent and the few who can afford to buy are faced with the risk of large capital losses.

Nonsense. Young people do not pay a significantly bigger percentage of net income on housing now than in the past. And the stats prove it.

Relocating to areas with skills shortages and poor transport links is not a solution.

Birmingham has poor transport links? Manchester? Liverpool? Glasgow?

Have they closed down all the motorways and airports in those cities when I wasn't looking?

How very dare they......

These are not cheap places to do business. In these areas, the public sector are offering salaries and conditions that private companies cannot hope to compete with.

Prime buffoonery, monkeyboy.

Salaries are significantly lower everywhere in the UK outside of London and the S.E.

ONS data confirms it.

If you want cheaper labour, move two or three hours north of London, thats all you have to do.

It is not so much a conspiracy as naked manipulation. Why did the Labour government exclude house prices in the inflation target?

For supply read cheap money and for demand read mass immigration. Neither are sustainable.

Yawn.....

More conspiracy theories and crackpot rubbish. Come on Macaque, I know you can do better than this.

Immigration is only a part of population growth, and also only part of household formation.

Even if you could significantly reduce immigration (and you can't), it wouldn't change the fact that we form more households than we build houses.

ANd rates will stay low for a very long time. There are some very bearish economists (like Bootle) who expect rates not to reach 1% for 5 years. Morgan Stanley think the new neutrality point for the economy is just 2.5%. You will probably not see 5% rates again in your lifetime.

You use this figure as though it was a law. The 400,000 population growth is due to net inward migration. Immigrants have been getting a free ride on our health system, schools and housing. How long do you think it can last after political motives change or economic discomfort prevails.

Immigrants are a net contributor to society. They pay more than they use. We make a profit on them.

That is not true and you cannot drive using the rear view mirrors alone.

Oh, it most certainly is true. The ONS data shows that population has grown by around 400,000 every year for the last 3 years. Thats 1.2 million extra people in just 36 months. And population growth is likely to now accelerate as the UK economy is in far better shape than most of Europe's is... And of course we cannot limit EU immigration even if we wanted to.

And we are currently building less houses than at any time since 1924.......

Mr Shapps said: “Houses cannot be built by targets that don’t work with money that doesn’t exist.

“We have the lowest peacetime rate of housebuilding since 1924 and top-down control that alienates the public and undermines support for new housing,” added Shapps.

http://www.homemove.co.uk/news/14-06-2010/british-housebuilding-to-%E2%80%9Cfall-of-a-cliff%E2%80%9D.html

brit1234

StevieJ wrote: »

Part of your Pycho training - Divide and Conquer

Not yet but covered cutting enemies ears off and wearing them as a necklace today though if that counts.

Whoops I thought you meant psycho training, sorry :rotfl:

pop_gun

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You will probably not see 5% rates again in your lifetime.

[URL="http://"][/URL]

the bank have their own lending rates so as far as homebuyers are concerned the IR is irrelevant. savers on the other hand...

macaque_2

Hamish

The average salary of actual house buyers (as opposed to all people) is more like £42K.

Details of the 2009 annual gross salaries were:
70% of of the population earned less than £30k
80% of of the population earned less than £36k
90% of of the population earned less than £47k

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/2009_all_employees.pdf

I will let you work out the implications of this.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

macaque wrote: »

I will let you work out the implications of this.

Yes.... I quoted the wrong figures. I should have said income instead of salary.

The average income of housebuyers is 42K...... But some of those applicants are joint.

The figure you need to look at is household income.



60% of households in the UK have an income of more than £25K.

40% have an income of more than £39K

20% have an income of more than £71K

And as we only build 35% of the houses we need, then only the top earning 35% of households need to be able to afford them. All the existing homeowners just float with a rising tide.

The current median of the top earning 60% is right around £40,000. Which ties in nicely with the current average house price.

StevieJ

It's the way you tell em