Who'd vote for lower house prices? Not many...

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

ONS seem to be quoting £501 per week average full time salary.

Where's that?

IveSeenTheLight

ILW wrote: »

That would make average salary over £40k. Is that correct?

I provided the link.
Here's how it defines: -

House Price Earnings Ratio

The house price earnings ratio is calculated by dividing the Halifax seasonally adjusted standardised average house price by average earnings.

The earnings data is a calculation based on the average earnings for Male Full Time employees from the ASHE survey at April each year. Subsequent quarters are estimated using the national average weekly earnings (KAI7) published by the ONS.

Here's a link to the ONS figures.
Note these are 2011 provisional results. We should see the final results at the end of November
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2011-provisional-results--soc-2010-/2011-provisional-table-1.zip

Best to refer to table 1.7a

The mean average in 2011 was £36,415.

The KAI7 data is available at: -
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/october-2012/table-earn01.xls
See tab 3. AWE Regular Pay.

Note this encompassess all earnings and not the Male Full Time earnings hence presumably why they are estimated using this figure.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Where's that?

Here I think

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/ashe-results-2011/ashe-statistical-bulletin-2011.html

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I provided the link.
Here's how it defines: -



Here's a link to the ONS figures.
Note these are 2011 provisional results. We should see the final results at the end of November
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2011-provisional-results--soc-2010-/2011-provisional-table-1.zip

Best to refer to table 1.7a

The mean average in 2011 was £36,415.

The KAI7 data is available at: -
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/october-2012/table-earn01.xls
See tab 3. AWE Regular Pay.

Note this encompassess all earnings and not the Male Full Time earnings hence presumably why they are estimated using this figure.

All earnings comes out at 23k on the tab you have referred us too.

Which is more in line with expectations.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All earnings comes out at 23k on the tab you have referred us too.

Which is more in line with expectations.

...and if you had the time & inclination you could plot 'all earnings' against house prices over time.

The graph would mirror a graph of adult full time male earnings (give or take) against house prices over time.

I don't think you understand this which is why you're arguing that today's ratio of 4.25 should be 6.9 (£159,950/£23k). To give you the benefit of the doubt maybe you're trying to deflect away from the fact that house prices when compared to earnings are not far away from historical norms.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All earnings comes out at 23k on the tab you have referred us too.

Which is more in line with expectations.

Graham,
Have a go again at reading the posts / explanation of how the figure is derived.

ukcarper

So according to Halifax prices need to fall about 6% to get to long term average to be fair according to Nationwide they are now about 5x average earnings so need to drop about 20% .

Emy1501

We are involved in the worse economic downturn in living memory. House prices were about 2.5-3x average wage at the end of the last recession.

Therefore not sure we are in a good place to get out of our problems we are in with house prices at 4-5x wages. 4-5 times in good times maybe ok but I doubt it is with the economy where it is.

Time will tell though.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

...and if you had the time & inclination you could plot 'all earnings' against house prices over time.

The graph would mirror a graph of adult full time male earnings (give or take) against house prices over time.

I don't think you understand this which is why you're arguing that today's ratio of 4.25 should be 6.9 (£159,950/£23k). To give you the benefit of the doubt maybe you're trying to deflect away from the fact that house prices when compared to earnings are not far away from historical norms.

All I'm personally seeing here is:

"Please look at the highest income possible....we'll use some discrimination here...cus we can, and we'll call it positive discrimination and only look at a mans wages. We'll baulk a little as the figure is so high, but ignoring that...... We then compare that to the house price...we concludes that house prices are still overvalued, even if we stretch it over the last 30 years....you idiot, you incumbent idiot, come on everyone, call him an idiot....this proves my point that houses are, indeed, affordable".

Yer, that's not gonna go down well, and yes, it's an immature way to look at it, but sometimes just stating the obvious, and stating that the average wage should be just that, the average, just seems to pass so many of you by.

You keep on cherry picking the data to suit, but ignore all other data. Whichever way you look at it, houses are overpriced (in terms of salary). We have a current crisis of people even in them unable to afford them. We've got large support in place to protect these people.

A graph can only tell you one single side of the argument and can prove whatever you wish the graph to prove. Reality is a different ballgame, and I hate to break it to you, but the average was IS around 26k. You can choose the average you would prefer, you can choose the type of person earning you prefer to make calculations look better, but you cannot get away from reality.

Lots of stuff has changed in 30 years. We;ve got 10,000 extra households a MONTH claiming housing benefits, but you want to pretend people are actually earning an average 37k a year on one wage?! Some men, thanks to the massive wages of bankers, footballers etc dragging the line up earn 37k a year. Most do not. And it's not just men who buy houses....

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All I'm personally seeing here is:

"Please look at the highest income possible....we'll use some discrimination here...cus we can, and we'll call it positive discrimination and only look at a mans wages. We'll baulk a little as the figure is so high, but ignoring that...... We then compare that to the house price...we concludes that house prices are still overvalued, even if we stretch it over the last 30 years....you idiot, you incumbent idiot, come on everyone, call him an idiot....this proves my point that houses are, indeed, affordable".

Yer, that's not gonna go down well, and yes, it's an immature way to look at it, but sometimes just stating the obvious, and stating that the average wage should be just that, the average, just seems to pass so many of you by.

You keep on cherry picking the data to suit, but ignore all other data. Whichever way you look at it, houses are overpriced (in terms of salary). We have a current crisis of people even in them unable to afford them. We've got large support in place to protect these people.

A graph can only tell you one single side of the argument and can prove whatever you wish the graph to prove. Reality is a different ballgame, and I hate to break it to you, but the average was IS around 26k. You can choose the average you would prefer, you can choose the type of person earning you prefer to make calculations look better, but you cannot get away from reality.

Lots of stuff has changed in 30 years. We;ve got 10,000 extra households a MONTH claiming housing benefits, but you want to pretend people are actually earning an average 37k a year on one wage?! Some men, thanks to the massive wages of bankers, footballers etc dragging the line up earn 37k a year. Most do not. And it's not just men who buy houses....

To sum up, not everyone will have the opportunity to become homeowners.

P.S. The Male Full Time figure is used as that is how historically properties were bought and how the measure was initiated.
to change that information means a lot of historical work to recalculate the average incomes and ratios. Male part times, female full times, female part times and unemployed (male or female) historically didn't buy houses.

There is no point wishing to compare apples with oranges