You aint seen nothing yet: Why house prices could fall another 20%

Really2

des_cartes wrote: »

The logic being that the average male wage (or average wage) is skewed further from reality today than it has been in the past due to the fact that the earnings of the highest decile are greater in multiples of the median than they were.

Any proof of that, 90% of the population were in low paid factory jobs not so long ago. There was a vast gulf to the other 10% and no hope of ever joining them.

The biggest growth in jobs is the so called middle classes. So I would like to know why you think the gulf has widened not decreased.
Their is far more jobs in middle pay areas than there was in the past.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Only if the demand from "investors" increases sufficently to pick up the slack.

From an investors point of view, an increasing rental demand and increasing Rental Yield will always attract investors.

des_cartes

Really2 wrote: »

Any proof of that, 90% of the population were in low paid factory jobs not so long ago. There was a vast gulf to the other 10% and no hope of ever joining them.

The biggest growth in jobs is the so called middle classes. So I would like to know why you think the gulf has widened not decreased.
Their is far more jobs in middle pay areas than there was in the past.

In the not so distant past would Premiership footballers have been paid 200x median earnings? Investment bankers 50x median earnings? or company execs 20x median earnings? No, the rapid rise in earnings of the top few percent has been a recent phenomenon which can only have skewed the average further from median earnings.

FTBFun

des_cartes wrote: »

In the not so distant past would Premiership footballers have been paid 200x median earnings?

Are all Premiership players on £5 million a year then? (That's £96,000 a week by the way, and I know that's not the case at Tottenham at least).

Investment bankers 50x median earnings?

And how many are on more than a million a year?

or company execs 20x median earnings?

And how many "company execs" (whatever that means) are on more than £500k? I can tell you that none of the partners in my firm are.

No, the rapid rise in earnings of the top few percent has been a recent phenomenon which can only have skewed the average further from median earnings.

Although, its unlikely to be that much as has been noted earlier.

Really2

des_cartes wrote: »

In the not so distant past would Premiership footballers have been paid 200x median earnings? Investment bankers 50x median earnings? or company execs 20x median earnings? No, the rapid rise in earnings of the top few percent has been a recent phenomenon which can only have skewed the average further from median earnings.

0.01% earn over £1M. (6,000 people that is all)

In the past people did labour or owned a business. The people who owned earnt greatly more than those that worked for them.

There were not real middle ground jobs, so how you think premiership footballers have skewed the figures is beyond me.

Have you ever thought that the people doing a few hours in the Co-Op might even out all those premiership footballers?
Nearly 10,000,000 earn under £12K (I make that under the minimum wage) they must be part time, do you not see how this drags down he average?

Do you think 10,000,000 were in part time jobs in 1960?

Graham_Devon

Jeez. All des is saying is that there are more people earning higher amounts now, than there were in the past.

Is that concept really so hard to understand?

We all know it's true, regardless of how some try to paint the picture. The figures themselves don't really matter that much, whether 0.0001% earn over £1m or 20% earn over £1m. All he's saying is more people are earning high amounts. Simple.

Who's gonna be the first to tell me I'm talking rubbish and 20% don't earn over £1m? <rolls eyes>

des_cartes

Really2 wrote: »

0.01% earn over £1M.

In the past people did labour or owned a business. The people who owned earnt greatly more than those that worked for them.

There were not real middle ground jobs, so how you think premiership footballers have skewed the figures is beyond me.

Have you ever thought that the people doing a few hours in the Co-Op might even out all those premiership footballers?

So to sum uo yours and the op's position:

Recent growth inequality between earnings of the vast majority and the small minority have not skewed the average male earnings calculation used to calculate house price affordability.

Or are you suggesting that the top decile's earnings not grown faster than the remaining 90% of earners in recent years.

My position is that you are incorrect on both counts.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

From an investors point of view, an increasing rental demand and increasing Rental Yield will always attract investors.

Investors still require the magic ingredient that they always have - capital.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Jeez. All des is saying is that there are more people earning higher amounts now, than there were in the past.

Is that concept really so hard to understand?

Yes because the gulf between rich and poor has decreased.

More people are in managerial and supervisory roles than in any time of our employment history (1 in 3 I believe).

So it is not the very top that skew the data it is the 10,000,000 people in jobs that did not really exist in the past, Part time.

It is part of the change to society there is not just a man at work and a woman at home now.
Men work, women work, they may go part time after children.

If you think people were not earning 40X the average wage 40 years ago you need looking at.

I believe social change has seen a shrinking working class, increasing middle class and an upper class that has stayed about the same.

How does that fit in with the idea that it is the top skewing the data?
I think the press class us all as middle class now.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article713386.ece

THE working classes are in rapid decline, with the middle class poised to become the majority of the population by 2020, according to a report from the Future Foundation think-tank.

Graham_Devon

Right, so in between all the guff really is now suggesting that ever more top earners, do not change the average.

Brilliant.

Dunno what all your guff is about with middle classes, makes absolutely no difference to these calculations, or the context in which we are talking.