Average house prices vs household income.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well it isn't, as the figures in the OP were not based on household income.

Ummm, yes they were. "Family income" is another term Americans use for household income.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good lord Hamish. I have never seen percentages worked in such a way that you completely ignore the actual monetry value, to make your completely spun argument.

Let me add your figures up. 22+32+17+46% = 117% rise.

Yet a 55% increase in wages.

Hmmm. And there you are telling us costs haven't gone up as much as wages have.

You blithering fool.

I've had to quote this for posterity, just so we can all laugh at your lack of mathematical comprehension.:rotfl:

Try again Graham.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I've had to quote this for posterity, just so we can all laugh at your lack of mathematical comprehension.:rotfl:

Try again Graham.

Want to tell me how I'm wrong?

Costs up 117%

Income up 55%.

How does that mean households have seen their costs go up less than income?

Don't just laugh, explain away.

FTBFun

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Want to tell me how I'm wrong?

Costs up 117%

Income up 55%.

How does that mean households have seen their costs go up less than income?

Don't just laugh, explain away.

Read his post again Graham.

Alysia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Want to tell me how I'm wrong?

Costs up 117%

Income up 55%.

How does that mean households have seen their costs go up less than income?

Don't just laugh, explain away.

If three things rose by 12%, 16% and 22% (for example) then total costs didn't rise by 50% (12+16+22), the rose by the average of the three. So, if spending on all three things are equal the rise in costs for this example would be around 16%, not 50%.

Alysia

Percy1983 wrote: »

To put it simply.

I would rather have bought in 97 with high rates than now with low rates.

Me too. We were first time buyers in 1997 and simply couldn't afford the same house now on the equivalent wage, even taking in to account the higher interest rates at that time.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Want to tell me how I'm wrong?

Costs up 117%

Income up 55%.

How does that mean households have seen their costs go up less than income?

Don't just laugh, explain away.

Oh dear. This reminds of some of our suppliers..

...paper's gone up 25%

...steel's gone up 12%

Please can we have an increase in the product cost of 37% because our costs have gone up by 37%.

System

I'm not sure what benefit there is in comparing a period of the lowest real terms prices ever and the highest.

Or what benefit there is of taking the lowest point and referring to it as long term.

As for Graham's maths again, lulz

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Oh dear....

Poor Graham still hasn't realised how badly he screwed up. A bit humiliating really.

I'd almost feel sorry for him if it weren't for this....

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You blithering fool.

Which, all things considered, was the icing on the cake.:rotfl:

Although, if it's any consolation Graham, it seems you're not alone on the "doesn't understand percentages" front.

The Following User Says Thank You to Graham_Devon For This Useful Post: Show me >>
Percy1983 (Today)

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

To put it simply.

I would rather have bought in 97 with high rates than now with low rates.

97, lower mortgage, high interest, interest rates come down, low interest on smaller mortgage.

Now, higher mortgage, low interest, yeah great until rates go up and I have a big mortgage + high interest.

I think most people would in hindsight but interest rates in 1997 looked didn’t look that high compared to the 25 years before. It’s nice to buy at the bottom of the bust the problem is knowing when that is in advance.