Rightmove April +1.7%

the.ciscokid

chucky wrote: »

so let me get this right either under 25s was the norm or their decreasin because you've just smashed the Fox's argument completely. well done

They're decreasing (the amount of people buying who are under 25) with time, which tends to agree with Fox, no?

chucky wrote: »

yes quite... they always seem to be skewed when they go against the usual suspects viewpoints...

never say die, that's the spirit...

You disagree with my analysis then? Why exactly? Perhaps is it too much to expect a reasoned argument from you...

Compartmentalizing the figures into these age categories isn't helpful either. We cannot tell what proportion were buying in the lower end of the age scale.

You cannot dispute less young people are buying, based on YOUR figures.

chucky

the.ciscokid wrote: »

You cannot dispute less young people are buying, based on YOUR figures.

if you had bothered to read my post you would see that i never did dispute it.

i disputed that it was the norm for people in their 20s to buy, which is a blatant lie.

nothing else, nothing more.

Batchy

I think the market at the moment is in Panic...

I speak to FTBers and all they think is rates are going up... rates are going up...etc... of course, they wont go any lower, but the slow down in the economy to me, points to them holding off further still. We all are entitled to our own opinions.

So to buy now and lock yourself into a 4-5% deal isnt that bad an idea... if thats what your thinking.

Are rates going to go up... who knows, but I do know one thing inflation is getting ridiculous, no idea how they get a 4% figure... for CPI.

Most things im seeing is increasing by 20% plus per annum... fuel, energy, food, drinks, insurances... pretty much all ESSENTIALS, even the cheap chinese imports are feeling the pinch.

Its only a matter of time before we get wage inflation to bail us all out.

PS got my payrise yesterday, better than expected. Happy days! (so its already happening)

SingleSue

Cleaver wrote: »

There wasn't a single year during the 1990s when the average age of a FTBer was in their 20s. This is a chart from a report from the Survey of Mortgage Lenders and it shows that chucky is pretty much correct when he says that the average age of a FTBer has been early 30s for about 20 years.




It shows that during the 1990s the average age of a FTBer was:

1990: 33
1991: 31
1992: 32
1993: 32
1994: 32
1995: 31
1996: 31
1997: 32
1998: 32
1999: 32

It was never the 'norm' for buyers in the 1990s to be in their 20s. If you bought your first home in the 1990s in your twenties then you were younger than the average person buying their first house.

Hehe, told you I like to be outside of the norm...I was 19 when we bought our house (20 by 2 days by the time we completed - we were originally going to complete over a month earlier) in 1990.

Mind you, I was also knocking on the door of being a high rate tax payer (reached that the following year).

the.ciscokid

chucky wrote: »

if you had bothered to read my post you would see that i never did dispute it.

i disputed that it was the norm for people in their 20s to buy, which is a blatant lie.

nothing else, nothing more.

If you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen:

Your figures, without context, are meaningless; so I thought I would add the whole set of numbers for a bit of clarity.

I said you need clarity to any set of figures, and then discussed how I thought it was interesting.

Nothing more, nothing less.

chucky

the.ciscokid wrote: »

If you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen

i started but got bored when you started rambling on about something completely different comparing apples and potatoes.

it's my fault though, i should know better to even entertain the HPC ghetto.

Linton

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Percentage of all mortgages    
    Age of borrower (sole or first named applicant): years    
        Under 25    25 to 34    35 to 44    45 to 54    55 or over    Average
First time buyers                            
1990        30.0    40.6    14.5    7.0    7.9    33
1991        29.6    44.4    14.6    5.5    5.4    31
1992        26.8    46.0    15.1    6.3    5.7    32
1993        24.6    47.7    16.0    7.1    4.5    32
1994        22.7    48.5    16.6    7.4    4.8    32
1995        23.7    51.3    15.4    6.3    3.3    31
1996        22.1    52.7    16.0    6.3    2.8    31
1997        18.8    52.4    17.1    6.6    3.4    32
1998        18.2    52.0    17.8    6.7    3.2    32
1999        16.0    52.8    20.1    8.1    3.1    32
2000        16.6    50.5    19.6    7.7    5.6    33
2001        17.0    48.3    19.2    7.2    8.3    34
2002        16.4    49.3    22.5    7.8    4.0    33
2003        15.9    45.4    22.0    9.1    7.6    31
2004        17.8    48.2    21.2    8.6    4.2    33
2005        18.8    53.2    19.1    6.4    2.5    32
2006        17.4    55.7    18.6    6.1    2.2    31
2007        18.3    55.5    17.8    6.1    2.3    31
2008        17.6    53.0    18.9    7.6    2.9    32
2009        15.9    56.2    18.5    7.0    2.4    32
2010        13.8    57.7    19.5    7.0    2.1    32

Your figures, without context, are meaningless; so I thought I would add the who set of numbers for a bit of clarity. It is interesting how a under 25s have dropped by more than 50% in that time period, and 25s to 34s have increase by almost 50%, yet the "mean average" actually shows a decrease in average age.

The figures, I can only assume, are skewed heavily by the decrease in the over 55s category, which has decreased by 80% over the same time period.

Which ever way you look at it, the under 25s category has decreased dramatically, and the 25s to 34s increased. Less younger people are buying, and this cannot be disputed.

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Anything to do with the large increase of people in further education?????

the.ciscokid

chucky wrote: »

i started but got bored when you started rambling on about something completely different comparing apples and potatoes.

it's my fault though, i should know better to even entertain the HPC ghetto.

Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.

the.ciscokid

Linton wrote: »

Anything to do with the large increase of people in further education?????

And debt? You tell me.

ukcarper

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Percentage of all mortgages    
    Age of borrower (sole or first named applicant): years    
        Under 25    25 to 34    35 to 44    45 to 54    55 or over    Average
First time buyers                            
1990        30.0    40.6    14.5    7.0    7.9    33
1991        29.6    44.4    14.6    5.5    5.4    31
1992        26.8    46.0    15.1    6.3    5.7    32
1993        24.6    47.7    16.0    7.1    4.5    32
1994        22.7    48.5    16.6    7.4    4.8    32
1995        23.7    51.3    15.4    6.3    3.3    31
1996        22.1    52.7    16.0    6.3    2.8    31
1997        18.8    52.4    17.1    6.6    3.4    32
1998        18.2    52.0    17.8    6.7    3.2    32
1999        16.0    52.8    20.1    8.1    3.1    32
2000        16.6    50.5    19.6    7.7    5.6    33
2001        17.0    48.3    19.2    7.2    8.3    34
2002        16.4    49.3    22.5    7.8    4.0    33
2003        15.9    45.4    22.0    9.1    7.6    31
2004        17.8    48.2    21.2    8.6    4.2    33
2005        18.8    53.2    19.1    6.4    2.5    32
2006        17.4    55.7    18.6    6.1    2.2    31
2007        18.3    55.5    17.8    6.1    2.3    31
2008        17.6    53.0    18.9    7.6    2.9    32
2009        15.9    56.2    18.5    7.0    2.4    32
2010        13.8    57.7    19.5    7.0    2.1    32

Your figures, without context, are meaningless; so I thought I would add the who set of numbers for a bit of clarity. It is interesting how a under 25s have dropped by more than 50% in that time period, and 25s to 34s have increase by almost 50%, yet the "mean average" actually shows a decrease in average age.

The figures, I can only assume, are skewed heavily by the decrease in the over 55s category, which has decreased by 80% over the same time period.

Which ever way you look at it, the under 25s category has decreased dramatically, and the 25s to 34s increased. Less younger people are buying, and this cannot be disputed.

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Don’t you think that the fact that over 3x as many people go to university now than did in 1980 would have some effect of the number of people under 35 buying?

See linton beat me to it.