House prices rising in uk

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

NEO72 wrote: »

increase of 2.7 million people

Average household size = 2.32

So 1.16 million homes required

Oh dear.....

A blunt average based on existing totals that takes no account of new household formation numbers nor the change of houshold formation types..... Namely... The rise of single person households, divorces turning one household into two, etc.

Just.....Wow.

I'll be honest mate, I expected more from you.:(

Fortunately however, professional statisticians (as opposed to hpc-ers with a shaky grasp of basic maths) have worked on this problem and come up with the following:


The past:

The past 30 years has seen a significant growth in the number of lone occupant households in the UK. One indication of the trend is that while the population of Great Britain has grown by 5% over the past three decades, the number of households with one occupant has grown by 31% (Social Trends, 2003:42). Turning from households to individuals as the basis of trend data, in the 2001 Census 15.6% ie. 16% of all adults under pensionable age were living alone. The trend towards living alone is also seen to be not just a feature of the UK but to characterise Europe more generally (Kaufmann, 1994).

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/3/chandler.html


The present situation:

“The central assumption from the Department of Communities and Local Government is that long term net migration will be 171,500 per year, resulting in an annual increase in the number of households in England of 252,000 once other factors are taken into account. Even if one were to assume zero net migration, however, the number of households is still projected to expand by an average of 153,000 units per year through to 2031.

Whatever the true number is, it is almost certain that current levels of housing construction have fallen far below future levels of household formation (chart 3). Based on recent levels of housing starts, it looks likely that only around 100,000 homes will be built during 2009, which would represent by far the lowest level on record.

As it is likely to take time for the economy and housing construction to recover to pre-crisis levels, the potential exists for a considerable housing shortfall to develop over the next few years.

This would be on top of the shortfall that already started to develop in 2004, when even boom-time levels of construction failed to keep pace with household growth.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Jul_2009.pdf


The future:

The analysis projects 234,000 additional households forming per year on top of the backlog of unmet housing needs.

Between 2006 and 2026, a total increase of households with children is projected - of about 700,000 in round terms. However, the number of couple households with children is projected to fall by 176,000, while the number of lone-parent households is projected to increase by 889,000. This is nearly 20% of the total increase in households in the period, 575,000 more than in the 2006-based projections and 615,000 more than in the 2004-based projections.

Professor Christine Whitehead, Professor of Housing at the London School of Economics and Fellow in the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research at Cambridge University, said:

"It should come as no surprise that England still faces a severe housing shortage. Yet for the first time we can begin to formulate what type of households are forming and what pressures there may be on our housing stock."

"The figures suggest that we can expect two fifths of family households to be made up of lone parent families by 2026."

http://www.masonryfirst.com/printNews.asp?newsID=2632

badrobot76

These articles always forgot the actual economic facts , quite simply with inflation running at 5.2% and the average increase only being 1.2% this equal a net LOSS on property prices of 4% a drop in REAL terms of -£6532

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

badrobot76 wrote: »

These articles always forgot the actual economic facts , quite simply with inflation running at 5.2% and the average increase only being 1.2% this equal a net LOSS on property prices of 4% a drop in REAL terms of -£6532

Well that's a bit embarrassing for you....

I almost feel bad pointing it out, but inflation is an annual figure.

Property rose 1.2% last month alone.;)

badrobot76

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well that's a bit embarrassing for you....

I almost feel bad pointing it out, but inflation is an annual figure.

Property rose 1.2% last month alone.;)

Cheers Tavish , good spot , only glanced at the article ,the figures are even worse when you look at them over the year.

October 2010 average house price was £164,320 and October 2011 average house price £163,311 a loss in house value before inflation of -£1009.

When you also factor in inflation at -5.2% -£ 8492 this is a total real loss in value of -£9501.

NEO72

EdwardJenson wrote: »

Blimey give the poster a chance to reply!

I'll tell you what cost less 50 years ago - washing machines and televisions. In fact, there's thousands of things which cost let now - IN REAL TERMS. So your argument is weak:money:

House prices were expensive 100 years ago FYI - it's all relative!

So what you're saying is that even though the nominal price of, say, washing machines has risen over the past 50 years, the real price has dropped. Right?

So even though someone could rightfully claim that "the price of washing machines will only ever goes up", in actuality you could get one cheaper (relative to wages) at a future point in time.

Have a good think about that :money:

henrik1971

I was clearing out the loft a year or two ago, and there were some old newspapers up there from the late 1970's. There was an advert on one page for the latest Ferguson 23" colour tv at £279.

More expensive both in real and nominal terms.

My dad (the sole earner in the family) who earned fairly low unskilled wages bought the family home in Devon in 1971 with a mortgage from Halifax at a time when lending rules were pretty draconian and they only had a very small deposit.

40 years later, my wife and I, both earning substantial professional wages could never finance the purchase of that same house based on its current value, even if we maxxed everything out.

However, we can afford cars, foreign holidays and consumer goods that my parents could only have dreamed about. No wonder we live in a consumer-culture.

As far as the renting vs mortgage thing is concerned, there are still a surprising number of areas of the country where the asking rents on houses are less than the interest would be for a mortgage of those same properties, so renting makes total sense - in fact it is the preferable thing to do. If you also need flexibility and don't want to accept repairing responsibilities as well, renting can be a no-brainer in these times of nil or low level capital appreciation.

NEO72

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh dear.....

A blunt average based on existing totals that takes no account of new household formation numbers nor the change of houshold formation types..... Namely... The rise of single person households, divorces turning one household into two, etc.

Sorry, for a second I thought you were talking about averages - don't know where I got that idea..

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The financial losses for renters (versus buying) since 2009 are now getting very large indeed..... On average of course.

And eve those who bought at absolute peak in 2007 have now broken even or gone positive versus renting, on average.

And what have you come up with to refute the facts I presented. You don't even know do you? You're just vaguely chucking some relevant sounding quotes out and hoping that in some way it might support your argument.

Here I'll help you out:
The past - This 2004 summary tells us that the number of single person households had risen at that point. That. Is. Why. The. Average. Household. Size. Has. Fallen. To. The. Figure. I Quoted. Understand?

The present - yes you've dug up a quote from a nice impartial source for an opinion on the level of house building - the Nationwide Building Society :rotfl: I'll stick to offical government stats thanks.

The future - Another fantastically unbiased report on an expected lack of house bulding from...drum roll....The Town and Country Planning Association and even better...the Modern Masonry Alliance. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Well who can argue with a man citing robust sources like those :T

Thrugelmir

Saiorse wrote: »

In real terms electral goodds ae peanuts to what they were years ago:beer:

In the 70's the average home only had 13 electrical appliances.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In the 70's the average home only had 13 electrical appliances.

Interesting fact.

poppy10_2

EdwardJenson wrote: »

Could you name them, please?

Cooker
Refrigerator
Washing Machine
Toaster
Kettle
Iron
Mixer/blender
Television
Cassette recorder
Record player
Bedside lamp
Hairdryer
Coffee Maker

[*N.B. this list is totally made up]