Flamin' 'Eck, English House Prices Are Cheap.....

PasturesNew

moggylover wrote: »

... we suffer great pressure on properties from those looking for investment/rental properties, second-homes and the dreaded (and detested) hobby farmers and those who waste good smallholdings on their equine pets:(

The Council are the largest employer around here, and with the cuts coming that will have a really bad affect on the economy here, and again the wage rates. Furthermore, as this is an area to which people choose to retire from more affluent areas we are unfortunately stuck with the expense of providing them services from our Council Tax even though we have not had the benefit of the fancy salaries they have been earning.

Ditto Cornwall.

moggylover wrote: »

I've long since been of the opinion that the area in which they worked and earned and spent should be the one that funds their elder care and not the one to which they decided to retire because it puts a disproportionate strain on incomes in an area like this. However, I do realise that some of those people spend heavily in this area so perhaps the income from that balances it: I rather doubt it though.

And again.

moggylover wrote: »

These sort of rural areas have their plus points, but the reality of actually earning a good living around here (apart from the actual professions like solicitors, medics and teachers) is that it is unlikely for most. Just getting ANY job can be desperately tough and the local Jobcentre site often has absolutely nothing but personal carer situations which really are not jobs that everyone can (or should be forced to) do:(

Yep.

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

Fair enough. That is what I was digging at TBH.

So the next question is why not? £25,000 is £500 a week or £70 a day or £100 if you want a weekend.

Clearly you won't make that at the minimum wage but even at a tenner an hour that's 10 hours a day.

:eek::eek::eek: A tenner an hour? You've been in totally the wrong field to have any idea of how unlikely and unusual that is around here:D Even most of the building trade are only likely to be earning at around £14 and hour and they are probably the best paid non-graduate jobs in the area.

I would also have to say that I think it is fundamentall WRONG, WRONG, WRONG for a technologically advanced Nation with a large population to be requiring 10 hour days to provide a roof over ones head! Plus travelling that would often barely offer time for eating and sleeping and having worked those sort of hours (and longer) myself in the past I can tell you that there is only so long that people can and should be pushed to live with that poor a quality of actual life.

michaels

Good - I very much agree with your points including the thought that giving benefits in kind can remove the perverse incentives from cash benefits whilst also doing more good for the same cost.

I would add that the reason housing costs such a high proportion of income is not because of the market but rather because of planning laws preventing the market from operating. If new housing could be built wherever there was demand house prices would not exceed construction costs plus the alternative value of the land for farming which is not a lot per acre in comparison. I'm not saying a free for all would be desirable but it would prevent the housing market going so high and being so prone to boom and bust.

moggylover wrote: »

That's very true michaels, but there are ranters on both sides of that fence and the reason they rant is because they ARE totally incapable of seeing both sides of a picture.

We will never solve any of the problems of Society by ranting, or by holding only our own reality as the real reality:)

I shall possibly loose my CB, but, tbh, I think we would be better off across the board actually getting rid of CB and putting that money into something like giving each child a decent free school meal or extra money into education, because we certainly don't need to be encouraging ANYONE to breed these days and I do think benefits for those at work are wrong.

Incomes should be good enough to live on without major deprivation, and if that involves having to interfere with the markets (especially housing ones) in some way then I think that makes much more sense than robbing Peter to pay Paul as we do at the moment.

I certainly do not approve of that CB being a savings fund for the children of the very well heeled, nor the way that the family affords a new car every year:o Means testing everything IS expensive, but it is also probably a lot fairer than the blanket cut currently under suggestion.:)

chewmylegoff

i don't know if this is coincidence, but i've looked at a few of the regions from the figures quoted in the OP vs. the figures on the land registry website, and they are all 70% of the average price according to the land registry.

IveSeenTheLight

nembot wrote: »

The problem here is these prices do not reflect the local average wage.

For example, 114k maybe the figure for an average priced house in Liverpool, but it's highly unlikely the average wage would be anywhere near 25k in the local area - in fact it's probably a lot closer to 13-14k.

Would imagine the same analogy would be applicable to many areas, so affordibility is a term that can only be used loosely in these terms.

House prices have historically and usually are compared with the male full time wage and explained many times before.

There is no point in considering part time workers as they are unlikely to be house purchasers.

Maintaining the male full time comparison allows there to be a consistancy in comparing now to before.

that said, I'd like to bring some facts to the fore

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/tab8_7a.xls
Liverpool Male Full Time Mean average was £28,408 in 2009
Liverpool Male Full Time Median average was £23,606 in 2009

According to the LR, average property prices in Liverpool have increased each month since April and are now at£104,166, much the same throughout 2009.
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/

Certainly within the historical affordable bracket.

Even taking the All employee median average wages for Liverpool, at £19,284, an average house price of £104,166 deducting a 10% deposit would give a purchase price of £93,749 giving a non historical comparison, worst case (all employee median) mortgage to single wage multiplier of 4.86

Incidently, the HBOS measure of affordability shows the North west as currently 3.79 House Price - Earnings ratio with the 27 year average being 3.45
http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/excel/2010/HPIQ3/221010Affordability.xls

This also shows the Mortgage repayments as a percentage of income is currently 24.1% as opposed to the 27 year average of 30.7%

moggylover

Really2 wrote: »

Indeed many parts of the UK are more than affordable, looking on RM the cheapest 4 bed house within 10 miles of me is £75K... (not a great area though, and is a terraced)

The cheapest 4 bed detached is £140K.

I think the problem is many of the more expensive town outside London have poor job oppertunitys for the young etc. (mainly old market towns, now turning in to retirement towns:))
So yes you wont get much as a young person in the most expensive areas (shock).
But usually within 10 miles of any major work hub towns there are villages and towns that are more than affordable.
I think some expect they should be able to work in their birth town, really that idea went in the 70's if you ask me.
You cut your cloth to fit now, 10 miles is 20 mins for most villagers, compare that to London, 20 mins would be what 4 mile or less?

I think we need to realise that there will often be family commitments that preclude moving away for many people. We also need to realise that having all the income in one area and all the retirement expense in another is extremely POOR economics;) Furthermore, we need to be aiming to remove the need for the fuel inefficiency of having people commute long distances and the crime risks of dormitory areas. The modern way of life panders only to those that will achieve extreme wealth by their manipulation of it, it is of no benefit to either the majority of people OR the Country as a whole:(

You have some strange ideas of how easy travel is in truly rural areas!:eek: I have been known to spend 15 minutes at a standstill whilst cows cross the road and should one get stuck behind a tractor or other large and comparatively slow moving vehicle on our wee lanes around here then you might just as well be in London traffic because there can be miles between places where it is safe to overtake.

Then there are the occasions when high winds have dumped trees into the road and the alternative route is miles and miles out of your way since there is seldom an "as the crow flies" route, and those occasions when the snow and ice makes even local travel extremely dangerous because if you broke down or crashed you would be dead before you were found:eek:

Oh, and forget mobile phones when you crash, it is almost 100% guaranteed that you will be in a mobile phone black spot;)

StevieJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

London's figures are skewed by those big gaffs the celebs live in. Outside of London you get £1million places, but not 20 in a road.... you get one every 10 miles or so.

The opposite really, in the North West the million+ houses tend to be grouped together in areas like Prestbury, Mere Corner Knutsford, Alderley Edge, Hale Barns and Curzon Park Chester.

moggylover

PasturesNew wrote: »

This is what I use, 2009 figures at the moment: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/tab7_7a.xls

You can look at all, male, female, full-time, part-time by each area.

Thanks for that PN, confirms that mediam is £15,600 and mean is £16,883:(

I could have looked up this years figures on my work puter, but I was being idle:o:o:o:o

Really2

moggylover wrote: »

[/COLOR]

I think we need to realise that there will often be family commitments that preclude moving away for many people.

mmm, I moved 10 miles away from my birth town and see my parents more often than when I had a house there.

I hardly think 10 miles is really that far? do you really think it is, many boomer relocated a lot further than that.

You have some strange ideas of how easy travel is in truly rural areas! I have been known to spend 15 minutes at a standstill whilst cows cross the road and should one get stuck behind a tractor or other large and comparatively slow moving vehicle on our wee lanes around here then you might just as well be in London traffic because there can be miles between places where it is safe to overtake.

Not really, I have lived in one of the most rural and sparcly populated countys in england. So I know what it is like to get stuck behind a tractor, jcb etc on a b road.
But I am more than aware during commuting hours they do try to keep off the roads.

If your area is like you say daily, what is there to stay for, owning and work in such areas is never going to happen unless you run a farm.

moggylover

michaels wrote: »

Good - I very much agree with your points including the thought that giving benefits in kind can remove the perverse incentives from cash benefits whilst also doing more good for the same cost.

I would add that the reason housing costs such a high proportion of income is not because of the market but rather because of planning laws preventing the market from operating. If new housing could be built wherever there was demand house prices would not exceed construction costs plus the alternative value of the land for farming which is not a lot per acre in comparison. I'm not saying a free for all would be desirable but it would prevent the housing market going so high and being so prone to boom and bust.

At the same time, it could be argued that actually there are large numbers of houses which stand empty most of the time and that it is better NOT to just look to building new homes repeatedly. However, I do think that instead of VAT rate cuts and money off cars, the best thing Labour could have done to restart the economy without piling more money into the bubble that is the housing market would have been to spend on building social housing which would have got the construction industry going and put much more tangible and "real" money (and work) into the economy. It is the extreme growth in private rental that has really pushed the prices up and I don't think it is a good thing at all.

I understand that our largest proportion of population growth is actually from immigration, and noted that the CBI is STILL pushing to be allowed to import the skills it needs and not train from within the nation. Perhaps we will stand more chance of actually having good unemployment figures and affordable homes if they change their stance on this and try putting back some of what they have made from this Country;)

The new LDP's are dreadful! They are going to result in bigger and bigger single towns instead of smaller developments and this just increases the rat race problems:mad: