Why were house prices cheaper in the 1970s than they are in the C21st?

luvpump

The bottom line is that Labour allowed the floodgates to be opened, restrict the building of news homes ( at least not increasing them ) & allow a lax credit system to pay for it ! ... Bingo !

ukcarper

StevieJ wrote: »

What would be even more interesting is an average mortgage rate line plotted on that graph.

I agree difficult though especially when you take into account Miras which if I remember right was restricted to about £30k before it was abolished

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Stuff about it here.

Mind it though, the wording used may provoke a coronary

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/7974527/The-Boomers-bonanza-has-left-precious-little-for-the-rest-of-us.html

You mean

Tomorrow, a provocative new book by Ed Howker and Shiv Malik, called Jilted Generation,

FWIIW I think the younger generation are being betrayed on the pension front by employers that see an an easy way of reducing costs, I don't see housing as any more of a problem than it was in the past.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Then again you could just provide a chart showing affordabilty i.e. mortgage costs/net income.

No no no. Economics 101.

This would exclude all the people that can't afford to buy, and only include those who could buy.

No good when the point is more people could buy at one point than another point.

ukcarper

Things are never simple otherwise how did house prices manage to almost double in 1972 with no change in mortgage restrictions and inflation of about 15%.

Exocet

ukcarper wrote: »

Things are never simple otherwise how did house prices manage to almost double in 1972 with no change in mortgage restrictions and inflation of about 15%.

I think you'll find that was mainly down to decimalisation. The building suppliers sell bricks by the pound, and when it switched to kilos they just carried on with the same pricing.

Graham_Devon

Exocet wrote: »

I think you'll find that was mainly down to decimalisation. The building suppliers sell bricks by the pound, and when it switched to kilos they just carried on with the same pricing.

Talking about that, my dad often goes on about how screwed over they got when changing to the pound.

Apparently all prices went up effectively, but the value of peoples money went down. Something to do with 240 pence?!

Was it really true that there was a big screw over going from whatever it was at the time, to the pound?

ukcarper

Exocet wrote: »

I think you'll find that was mainly down to decimalisation. The building suppliers sell bricks by the pound, and when it switched to kilos they just carried on with the same pricing.

Wouldn’t that have halved the price?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Talking about that, my dad often goes on about how screwed over they got when changing to the pound.

Apparently all prices went up effectively, but the value of peoples money went down. Something to do with 240 pence?!

Was it really true that there was a big screw over going from whatever it was at the time, to the pound?

I don't think it was that bad but nobody rounded down only up when converting prices

Exocet

ukcarper wrote: »

Wouldn’t that have the price?

Halve?

No.

One pound of bricks cost 27p.
One kilo of bricks cost 27p.

Er.

Yes, you are right.