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 Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Rightmove: Buying Window is next 12-18 months
Comments
-
Just no cleaver. Unskilled people need homes for their families aswell.
Sorry Tommy, but I can only say this one more time. I'm not having a debate here about who should and shouldn't be able to buy a house, in terms of the moral aspects. I'm simply stating that in 2010, if you earn £18k, are single and have no access to other funds you can't afford to buy a house. That is just a simple fact.
A separate debate is required around whether people are entitled to buy a house or not, which I think is what you're trying to discuss? You mention families, but we were discussing a single person earning £18k.If you didn't do that well at school or are unlucky in life for whatever reason, you don't deserve a home?
I agree completely with this: everyone in our society should be provided with a roof over their head no matter who they are. This can be provided for them via the council, a subsidised rental via a housing association, private rental in your own or with others or ownership of your own place.The reason I mentioned Royal Mail, BT and Tesco etc and described them as 'major companies' is because they employ massive amounts of the UK workforce. Were are talking 200000 plus for some of these companies who pay a certain wage structure. Although there are skilled positions within these companies, the majority are unskilled worker and these make up the majority.
Look, we can talk back and forth about different companies and the wages they pay. We can talk about anecdotals: about how you know unskilled people not getting work and how I know skilled accountants who can get work. Etc. etc. The bottom line is that the average wage in this country is about £24k. If you're an average Joe, with average kinda skills, average kinda experience and average kinda qualifications then you'll probably be in an average type of job earning a distinctly average £24k. That's what the stats show us.
If you're earning £18k, then you might be someone who is in a job that more people than you can easily do, because you're probably under-qualifiied and under-experienced compared to the majority of the workforce. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it's a fact isn't it?I mentioned agencies also because the face of the UK economy has changed dramatically in the last 10 years and full time positions in these companies no longer exist.
You're right, the employment market has changed a lot over the last ten years. Doesn't it change a lot every ten years ago though? You need to roll with the times, be flexible and adaptable and make your own path in life. That's my view anyway.These people have a right to be able to afford a home without getting into unafordable debt or simply not having the size of deposit now needed to buy a home.
In my opinion no one has a 'right' to own a home. They have a right to a roof over their head, as everyone should in a civilised, prosperous nation.If you are a skilled worker then yes you should get a bigger nicer house in a better area but that shouldn't stop the majority of the working population from getting a basic necessity.
Do you see unskilled workers living out on the street? Or do most of them have a roof over their head in one form or another?
Look, I think houses are stupidly expensive. I don't buy Hamish's argument that it's the banks withholding mortgages via huge deposits that is causing the problem. I think it'd be nice for young people for house prices to fall so that they are more affordable. But I still think that if you have ambitions to buy a house, and you earn £18k then I'm afraid you need to pull your finger out and do something to enable you to buy one.0 -
You may both be right but I doubt it personally. For the bulk of unqualified, unskilled workers (shop, factory, clerical etc.) I think that in excess of £18k would be something they could only dream of earning.
I live in the allegedly wealthy south-east but, from what I know about local folk, I'm sure that only a minority earn the £25k average or above. You just have to look at job ads. Average pay, as defined, is raised by those earning vastly in excess of that figure.
Where do you look at job adverts? In local papers? Or at the job centre? Or some other form of public space? Because these places are generally where the unskilled, low paid jobs tend to be advertised by and large.
If I'm looking for a hard working warehouse operative for £16k a year then I imagine I'd stick an advert in my local paper (a large regional paper like the Manchester Evening News or The Standard if I were in a city) and probably also provide the details to the local job centre.
If I'm looking for a newly CIMA-qualified accountant to take on a Junior Management Accountant role paying around £30k then I'm not going to stick an advert on the local paper, am I? I'd focus on Finance journals, CIMA publications and industry-related publications.
And then the higher paid you go, the less likely a member of the public will see the advert. For example, our £50k Senior Accountants will generally all be appointed from within, so only advertised as such.
So sorry if you didn't mean this Treliac, but I don't think scanning adverts is a great way of assessing how much 'average' people are being paid.0 -
I don't think scanning adverts is a great way of assessing how much 'average' people are being paid.
Absolutely right. Someone scanning the job centre, local papers, Gumtree, etc, will never see all the high paying professional roles.
Ultimately though, this is a pointless argument.
The fact is that 50% of full time employees in the UK make more than the median wage, 50% make less.
If you earn an "average" wage, of around 25K, you don't make the same money as most people do.... in fact you're being out earned by 50% of the working population.
If you earn just 18K, you are being out earned by more like 70% of full time workers.“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 -
Where do you look at job adverts? In local papers? Or at the job centre? Or some other form of public space? Because these places are generally where the unskilled, low paid jobs tend to be advertised by and large.
So sorry if you didn't mean this Treliac, but I don't think scanning adverts is a great way of assessing how much 'average' people are being paid.
I did mean partly this, plus my knowledge of the area and its people.
But it's what is meant by 'average'? I'd say there are plenty more people doing or looking for unskilled or semi-skilled work than there are highly paid professionals, though it's the disproportionate salaries of the very well paid that raises the so called average salary.0 -
it's the disproportionate salaries of the very well paid that raises the so called average salary.
Not with median calculations.“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: »Not with median calculations.
Yeah, ok, so says the ONS
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285
I still question the information on earnings gathered from their survey... but with no supporting evidence I'm the first to admit.0 -
Sorry Tommy, but I can only say this one more time. I'm not having a debate here about who should and shouldn't be able to buy a house, in terms of the moral aspects. I'm simply stating that in 2010, if you earn £18k, are single and have no access to other funds you can't afford to buy a house. That is just a simple fact.
A separate debate is required around whether people are entitled to buy a house or not, which I think is what you're trying to discuss? You mention families, but we were discussing a single person earning £18k.
I agree completely with this: everyone in our society should be provided with a roof over their head no matter who they are. This can be provided for them via the council, a subsidised rental via a housing association, private rental in your own or with others or ownership of your own place.
Look, we can talk back and forth about different companies and the wages they pay. We can talk about anecdotals: about how you know unskilled people not getting work and how I know skilled accountants who can get work. Etc. etc. The bottom line is that the average wage in this country is about £24k. If you're an average Joe, with average kinda skills, average kinda experience and average kinda qualifications then you'll probably be in an average type of job earning a distinctly average £24k. That's what the stats show us.
If you're earning £18k, then you might be someone who is in a job that more people than you can easily do, because you're probably under-qualifiied and under-experienced compared to the majority of the workforce. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it's a fact isn't it?
You're right, the employment market has changed a lot over the last ten years. Doesn't it change a lot every ten years ago though? You need to roll with the times, be flexible and adaptable and make your own path in life. That's my view anyway.
In my opinion no one has a 'right' to own a home. They have a right to a roof over their head, as everyone should in a civilised, prosperous nation.
Do you see unskilled workers living out on the street? Or do most of them have a roof over their head in one form or another?
Look, I think houses are stupidly expensive. I don't buy Hamish's argument that it's the banks withholding mortgages via huge deposits that is causing the problem. I think it'd be nice for young people for house prices to fall so that they are more affordable. But I still think that if you have ambitions to buy a house, and you earn £18k then I'm afraid you need to pull your finger out and do something to enable you to buy one.
No argument with anything really you have said. Just mentioning the last bit regarding 'unskilled workers on the street'. The problem of affordability is only over the last 8 years or so and is only creating stress and heavy debt for the younger generations up and comming. Most already own their own houses and it's not a problem. People caught out which at the moment is still a minority are renting & paying off somebody elses retirement assests as they cannot afford the deposits needed. The main reason somebody gets out of bed every morning to go to work is to provide a roof over their families head. Now if only the middle class upwards & those working class already with equity in their home can only afford to buy and move home it kind of defeats the object.
The employment market does change alot every 10 years. My point is that there is no full time positions available anymore because big companys now only use agency staff as and when they are needed. There is no security for this kind of person in the UK anymore and they cannot get a mortgage even if they could muster up tens of thousand of pounds for a deposit. Pricing pretty much the entire working class out of home buying is not a good stable future for the UK in my eyes. As I said, with living costs shooting up and the unstability of work for the majority in this country will lead to much darker days than the 70's in the comming years. Or im just a pesimist.
0 -
My point is that there is no full time positions available anymore because big companys now only use agency staff as and when they are needed.
That is just not true.
I work for a big company, many tens of thousands of staff.
We don't allow recruitment of agency staff except in absolute emergency.
Because whilst they do provide some flexibility, they also cost a lot more than direct hires.Pricing pretty much the entire working class out of home buying is not a good stable future for the UK in my eyes.
The "working class" is now a minority in the UK. Outnumbered by professionals.
Besides, the upper bracket of the "working class" still earns good money.im just a pesimist.
True.: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 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
That is just not true.
I work for a big company, many tens of thousands of staff.
We don't allow recruitment of agency staff except in absolute emergency.
Because whilst they do provide some flexibility, they also cost a lot more than direct hires.
It's very true in some companies. Depends where you work and what their business is. DH works for a major company, whose bottom rung manual workers are predominantly agency workers they can hire and drop as it suits. The work is variable and seasonal so they don't want to be stuck with anyone who might be underutilised.
None of us can quote general 'fact' from our own experience alone.0 -
It's very true in some companies. .
Yes, but the following statement is just not true.
I've highlighted the relevant words...... My point is that there is no full time positions available anymore because big companys now only use agency staff as and when they are needed.
My point is that is simply not the case, our company for example almost never uses agency staff. It's just too expensive.“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
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards