We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Private Rents in England "Unaffordable"
Comments
-
I would suggest that people not having children because they cannot afford to do so is not a good thing. I would say the removal of a safety net for sickness and unemployment and raising children is not a good thing.
A safety net as you call it which presupposes that couples will and must have children and that their mortgage should accordingly be restricted to a multiple of the breadwinner's salary is archaic though. Again: why should a gay couple be restricted to a multiple of one partner's salary when they take out a mortgage together?You imply that debt has increased because of social change.
I believe that in reality social change is also very much a function of increased debt.
It is true that people's capacity to take on debt has increased, largely because of the changing role of women in society. And maybe I'm wrong but I'd like to think that that is because of women wanting careers and individual fulfillment and being increasingly able to achieve this without relying on a male breadwinner.A better level must be found. And clearly this is happening, regardless of complaints on internet forums. The realities of the world take precedence.
Personally I'm not complaining about women having careers.I'd also note that your theory appears to ignore that fact that interest rates can and will change. I'm willing to bet that once the current economic emergency reduces, average interest rates will be significantly higher than the last decade. The age of free money is coming to an end. As will any theories about families popping out to by another house on a regular basis.
Do apply some logic geneer. When interest rates do rise and if they do persist at a significantly higher level, they will remain very much affordable in our theoretical situation where house prices remain fixed at a modest 4 x average single income. And our theoretical couple should be saving 20% of their income as this is sensible retirement planning. Why would it be unreasonable for them to amass property?0 -
A safety net as you call it which presupposes that couples will and must have children and that their mortgage should accordingly be restricted to a multiple of the breadwinner's salary is archaic though. Again: why should a gay couple be restricted to a multiple of one partner's salary when they take out a mortgage together?
Red herring. You're attempting to create an argument where there is none. As to gay couples, the banks are free to make that distinction.
Then again, why shouldn't a gay couple also be free to raise children.
It is true that people's capacity to take on debt has increased, largely because of the changing role of women in society. And maybe I'm wrong but I'd like to think that that is because of women wanting careers and individual fulfillment and being increasingly able to achieve this without relying on a male breadwinner.
Personally I'm not complaining about women having careers.
You appear to be assertion that the status quo has changed tremendously since the 80s. You are of course incorrect.
I'm all for women having careers too. Its a pity this has effectively made them no better off, and that it has become neccesary to have two incomes simply to survive. Thats the part you seem to be missing.
When interest rates do rise and if they do persist at a significantly higher level, they will remain very much affordable in our theoretical situation where house prices remain fixed at a modest 4 x average single income. And our theoretical couple should be saving 20% of their income as this is sensible retirement planning. Why would it be unreasonable for them to amass property?
Theres no point trying to pick your simplistic theory apart.
The fact is that salary multiples existed prior to the latest bubble, yet historically your theorised landlord explosion simply didn't happen.
You also appear to be underestimating the impact of nominal base rate increases.
Needless to say reality is more complex than the simplistic model you have chosen to put forward. There are numerous measures society (read government) can put in place to counteract.0 -
As you bought months before peak probably not.
Rebuild cost likely reflects outdated construction materials and techniques.
What it does mean is that you are paying a far higher insurance premium that you would be paying for an equivalent size building using more modern construction techniques. Sorry to break it to you.
But as always, thanks for sharing intimate details of your personal wealth with the forum.
I didnt know hamish bought just months before peak.
No wonder hes on here ramping house prices.0 -
As you bought months before peak probably not.
Rebuild cost likely reflects outdated construction materials and techniques.
Thats a fair point when you consider that to meet current building regulations you would need to spends far more on insulation and double glazing alone compared to 25 years ago let alone 100 years.That together with the increase in relative Labour costs.
That said generally speaking a house built 100 years ago would be of better build quality than todays poor quality,mass produced rubbish.0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »As you bought months before peak probably not.
Rebuild cost likely reflects outdated construction materials and techniques.
Thats a fair point when you consider that to meet current building regulations you would need to spends far more on insulation and double glazing alone compared to 25 years ago let alone 100 years.That together with the increase in relative Labour costs.
That said generally speaking a house built 100 years ago would be of better build quality than todays poor quality,mass produced rubbish.
I don't believe this is true. From a structural perspective basic construction materials for residental buildings, and in particular houses, haven't changed all that much.
Brick/Stone walls, timber roof, timber floors.
However, older properties tend to be poorly insulated.
Lathe and plaster walls tend to be unforgiving of movement and prone to cracking. Floors and ceilings are baffled by inches of ash.
They are also, as you say, old. Stone and hardwoods have held up well, but they are not timeless.
The main exception is the facade. Cheap render panel facades do not weather or last as long as concrete, brick or stone walls. That said the majority of new build houses do have brick/concrete facades.0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »
I don't believe this is true. From a structural perspective basic construction materials for residental buildings, and in particular houses, haven't changed all that much.
Brick/Stone walls, timber roof, timber floors.
However, older properties tend to be poorly insulated.
Lathe and plaster walls tend to be unforgiving of movement and prone to cracking. Floors and ceilings are baffled by inches of ash.
They are also, as you say, old. Stone and hardwoods have held up well, but they are not timeless.
The main exception is the facade. Cheap render panel facades do not weather or last as long as concrete, brick or stone walls. That said the majority of new build houses do have brick/concrete facades.
Timber in modern housing is of very poor quality, it twists,warps and cracks easily.Lathe and plaster walls in older properties is in fact more forgiving because in may instances they added Lime putty which as anyone with experience will tell you it allows for a certain amount of movement.
Modern workmanship is poor because its nearly always pricework so they don't actually care if joints etc are tight, they can just fill the gaps.Timber windows in the old days would last decades longer than now mainly due to modern timber is fast grown,cut early and kiln dried which is not good.Slow grown ,air dried timber will always last longer. I could go on for pages but I doubt it would be appreciated..Give me a pre 1940's house any day.We are talking build quality here and not insulation levels .
Having had over 25yrs of experience as a Carpenter & Joiner ,most of which has been on renovating older properties I bow to your superior knowledge.......
0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »0
-
Red herring. You're attempting to create an argument where there is none. As to gay couples, the banks are free to make that distinction.
Then again, why shouldn't a gay couple also be free to raise children.
Yes, the banks should be free to make that kind of distinction. One way to do this would be by using some form of 'affordability' criteria rather than a simplistic salary multiple.You appear to be assertion that the status quo has changed tremendously since the 80s. You are of course incorrect.
Social change has been gradual and inescapable.I'm all for women having careers too. Its a pity this has effectively made them no better off, and that it has become neccesary to have two incomes simply to survive. Thats the part you seem to be missing.
I guess it was all much simpler and easier when men worked and women stayed at home but those days are gone.
.Theres no point trying to pick your simplistic theory apart.
The fact is that salary multiples existed prior to the latest bubble, yet historically your theorised landlord explosion simply didn't happen
It's funny, then, that the proportion of owner-occupiers increased when lending criteria weren't based on archaic salary multiples and that it is now decreasing.You also appear to be underestimating the impact of nominal base rate increases.
It will give people with capital an advantage other those without.
Personally, I have a mortgage and have a pretty clear idea of what the impact might be of nominal base rate increases on me - less than you seem to think.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards