Private Rents in England "Unaffordable"

nearlynew

Building more houses and trying to sell them at the same price that is being asked for existing houses will not solve anything.


Only a complete f*cking idiot (or debt junky) would see this as a solution.

Linton

nearlynew wrote: »

Building more houses and trying to sell them at the same price that is being asked for existing houses will not solve anything.


Only a complete f*cking idiot (or debt junky) would see this as a solution.

If you build (a lot) more houses the price will come down because there will be fewer people chasing each house and so less need for prospective buyers to overbid to get the house they want. If you build sufficient new houses the builders would have to sell at the price sufficient people could afford or leave the properties empty.

So, given a number of houses the price will sort itself out so that the number of people wanting and able to buy equals that number.

PasturesNew

One of the costs of building a new house is building regs... that are often a nonsense. I was watching HutH in the week and some bloke had got PP for a flat over a commercial premises. He'd had to put in a disabled-friendly loo .... yet the access to the flat was along some dodgy/narrow back lane and up some steep, outdoor, fire escape type of stairs.... I'd imagine anybody disabled enough to require a disabled loo wouldn't have ever been able to even get into the flat.

drc

Take a look at this site which gives a full breakdown of cost of living/housing prices to income ratios etc;

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/

Cleaver

drc wrote: »

Take a look at this site which gives a full breakdown of cost of living/housing prices to income ratios etc;

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/

According to that website Manchester is a more expensive place to live than New York City:

Chart at the bottom of this page.

Jimmy_31

Linton wrote: »

If you build (a lot) more houses the price will come down because there will be fewer people chasing each house and so less need for prospective buyers to overbid to get the house they want. If you build sufficient new houses the builders would have to sell at the price sufficient people could afford or leave the properties empty.

So, given a number of houses the price will sort itself out so that the number of people wanting and able to buy equals that number.

A lot more houses will not appear overnight, they will appear gradually so people will just end up paying the same prices as there are not suddenly thousands of new homes available.

If the cost to build was also put on the for sale sign i think this would knock the prices right down, under 50k to build but up for sale for 150k+:eek:

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Thank you Graham, I wasn't sure what statement you were.

I would like to ask some further questions: -

Why do you think property should be affordable at 4 times an average single income (not mean male which is what the indexes are usually based against)?
It has been discussed before that part time, low income earners are generally not house buyers

What do you think needs to happen to ensure that house prices do drop 40%? and do you think that is likely?

If prices were to drop 40%, how do you think that would impact current home owners (on average)?

What is the likely outcome for a government that oversea a 40% reduction in property prices?

Finally and yes I am talking historically and hypothetically, how much x income has house prices on average been throughout the time that peole have paid for home ownership i.e. not self built from own sourced materials

I would like you to give your own take on those questions please.

geneer

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Gahh! Why do people keep peddling the obsolete salary multiples? That benchmark is barely relevant these days. Firstly, two incomes instead of one are now the norm. Secondly, long-term interest rates are much, much lower. So rather than one earner borrowing at 10%, we have two earners borrowing at 5% (or less).

The bears need to understand that what's considered 'normal' can change.

In relation to single incomes what you're implying is that if house prices were previously 4x a single salary (on single income), its now ok for them to be 8x a single salary (double income). This reasoning doesn't appear to be all that credible.

You're also essentially harking back to what VIs call "affordability".
It is surely relevant to point out that this spurious measure is a big part of what caused the economic troubles the world faces today.
The reasons why this was the case remain valid.
As such, using "affordability" as an argument displays a serious lack understanding.

Cleaver

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

If the cost to build was also put on the for sale sign i think this would knock the prices right down, under 50k to build but up for sale for 150k+

Two points on this.

1. On a new build the build price is just one component that makes up the total cost to bring a place to market.
2. I don't know anyone who puts two prices on a product, in terms of the sale price and the price it cost to make and bring to market. For obvious reasons.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

If the cost to build was also put on the for sale sign i think this would knock the prices right down, under 50k to build but up for sale for 150k+:eek:

Seeing as the insurance replacement value to rebuild my 100 year old house is around £100,000 more than the house and land together are worth, does this mean it's a bargain and I should buy some more?