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!
Own a house - you're working for nothing.
Comments
-
des_cartes wrote: »Some of your facts sound a lot like personal opinion and assumption to me (with some bias and wishful thinking thrown in for good measure).
QUOTE]
The difference between my personal opinion and yours is that I am able to back mine up with evidence. House prices falling by 30% would return them to the long term multiples of earnings. What gives you reason to believe they will remain higher now that the funny money that pushed prices up is no longer available?
Now I'm not sure you even know what fact is. Knowing the long term wage/house-price ratio and what it is today doesn't make it a fact that things will revert back and fall in line. It's just one theory out of many.
The indexes which do give you your real facts say prices are still up YOY. Just because they are down in the last few months everyone should sell their houses because they are now working for nothing? Bizarre rational...0 -
des_cartes wrote: »Go back even further to the 1950's and 1960's when mortgage rates were similar to now and you will find that house prices were still 3-4 times earnings.
In the 1950's, house prices were indeed around 4 times male, mean, full time earnings. We have the Nationwide data to thank for that.
Go back even further than that and you'll find they were much more expensive.
In fact, just 100 years ago house prices were so expensive that 90% of the houses were owned by just 10% of the people.As for average incomes being around 35k as you claim, i suppose if you include premier division footballers and celebrities you might be close but the median is nearer to 23k.
I claim no such thing.
I am merely pointing out that the "long term" average house price on the Halifax index is 4.0 times average male mean full time salary. Versus 4.8 times today.
You are trying to claim that the long term average house price is 3.5 times median salary of all people.
Which is demonstrably false.Supply and demand of course only comes into play if there is the finance available to increase demand.
Or if the supply drops to meet current effective demand. As happened last time around in 2008.“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: »You have to ask yourself why these failed STR gamblers are allowed on forums such as this. Losing such huge sums by such a risky behaviour as STR-ing and having it backfire spectacularly is not very MSE at all.
And then we realise exactly why you're allowed to stay.
It's to serve as a warning to anyone else thinking about such a terminally stupid course of action. :cool:
I've made it clear why I am here. What are you here for?0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »In the 1950's, house prices were indeed around 4 times male, mean, full time earnings. We have the Nationwide data to thank for that.
Go back even further than that and you'll find they were much more expensive.
In fact, just 100 years ago house prices were so expensive that 90% of the houses were owned by just 10% of the people.
I claim no such thing.
I am merely pointing out that the "long term" average house price on the Halifax index is 4.0 times average male mean full time salary. Versus 4.8 times today.
You are trying to claim that the long term average house price is 3.5 times median salary of all people.
Which is demonstrably false.
Or if the supply drops to meet current effective demand. As happened last time around in 2008.
But in 2008 your mate Gordo was still spending other peoples money to keep supply down. Now he's gone, you might have noticed there is a change of emphasis towards the housing market.0 -
des_cartes wrote: »I've made it clear why I am here. What are you here for?
The clue is in the name of the board.
"Debate House Prices & The Economy"“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 -
des_cartes wrote: »
Now I'm not sure you even know what fact is. Knowing the long term wage/house-price ratio and what it is today doesn't make it a fact that things will revert back and fall in line. It's just one theory out of many.
The indexes which do give you your real facts say prices are still up YOY. Just because they are down in the last few months everyone should sell their houses because they are now working for nothing? Bizarre rational...
And the headline in the Daily Telegraph, which as I'm sure you know is the mouthpiece of the Conservative party. Now why would they be talking down house prices I wonder?0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »The clue is in the name of the board.
"Debate House Prices & The Economy"
How does talking up house prices fit in with money saving?0 -
des_cartes wrote: »I've made it clear why I am here. What are you here for?
The patron saint of house buying,your very reminscent of Brit.Official MR B fan club,dont go............................0 -
des_cartes wrote: »But in 2008 your mate Gordo was still spending other peoples money to keep supply down. Now he's gone, you might have noticed there is a change of emphasis towards the housing market.
And can you explain how that refutes even a single one of the points raised in my post?“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 -
des_cartes wrote: »How does talking up house prices fit in with money saving?
Very well if you own a house.
Not to mention higher prices will save millions of people a lot of money on their mortgages as they drop into a lower LTV bracket and get better rates.“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
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards