ups and downs of housing market who benefited

Pimperne1

Percy1983 wrote: »

I never said the women had to be the one to stay home, the male could stay home or it could be 2 part time jobs.

The point is yes some couples may work because they want to, but how many couples would cuts hours to spend more time with there children if it was an option.

I see the tree huggers are out thanking you.

By your comment:

so it seems if we have children they will grow up knowing who mum and dad are, but many children hardly get to see there parents these days as there parents both have to work constantly to provide for them.

I thought you were hankering for the old days when only one parent went out working - in those days it was generally the man.

FATBALLZ

ukcarper wrote: »

I think that prices did get out of hand and are still to high but as my figures show property has been almost as high before

No they don't. Boomer maths strikes again.

Percy1983

Pimperne1 wrote: »

I thought you were hankering for the old days when only one parent went out working - in those days it was generally the man.

Fair enough I can see where you would have come up with that.

In some ways I do have a hankering for the old days where children where brought up by there parents and family meant something.

ukcarper

FATBALLZ wrote: »

No they don't. Boomer maths strikes again.

Not exactly but they show that if house prices had increased in line with wage inflation since 1973 they would about 11% less than they are now.

FATBALLZ

ukcarper wrote: »

Not exactly but they show that if house prices had increased in line with wage inflation since 1973 they would about 11% less than they are now.

Pretty meaningless statistic on its own. Also I'm guessing 1973 was a peak? And we're led to believe by some that current prices are a trough (although only time will tell). Compared to the 2007 peak the 1973 figure is still way off then.

If somebody could dig out a typical household budget from 1973 that might be more interesting and some meaningful conclusions could be drawn from it, but wages alone with no reference to the cost of living isn't useful for anything really.

ukcarper

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Pretty meaningless statistic on its own. Also I'm guessing 1973 was a peak? And we're led to believe by some that current prices are a trough (although only time will tell). Compared to the 2007 peak the 1973 figure is still way off then.

If somebody could dig out a typical household budget from 1973 that might be more interesting and some meaningful conclusions could be drawn from it, but wages alone with no reference to the cost of living isn't useful for anything really.

1973 was a peek and basic food etc was more expensive. But you missed the point I’m not denying property prices are high in fact in relation to wages the only time they were higher was in the latest boom. All I am saying is that it was not always easy to buy in the past and that if you bought at the wrong time you may not have made the vast amount some people would have you believe.

[Deleted User]

Surely the answer is anyone who bought during the boom years or before and still own their properties won and the rest lost.

Those that decided it would be best to wait while prices were exploding and were predicting interest rate rises that would wipe out everyone who had a mortgage, lost miserably. They either never bought or sold their main asset, paid less than mortgage rent for a few years, convinced themselves they were big winners as a result. Then the credit crunch hit which NONe of them predicted until after the event They then stayed with their idea that houses must fail as an investment and repeatedly reported every headline as proof of same.

The reality of course is that the problems with key components of the economy banks and business meant that the BOE had to reduce interest rates which is the standard response to recession. Then this amazing development (lol) was cited as the primary reason why all these wonderful models (usually missing the key facts) didn't represent reality.

In short those that didn't buy, or claim to have sold to gamble on their timing of a market exposed to factors they do not control, lost out miserably because they blinkeredly decided that theycould apply rules to a market driven by sentiment and overlooked the blindingly obvious fact that people being evicted wasn't a vote winner.

It is amusing to come back on this board after a considerable time away and find that none of the people guilty of the above have actually admitted they are wrong and instead are STILL arguing that they are right because nothing matters more on a forum where nobody even knows who you really are. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: