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

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Other than the two distorting spikes at stamp duty thresholds, the pattern of sales by price also shows a sharp decrease as value increases.

What relevance is this to the discussion?

Your graph is just pointing out the obvious. Something which will never really change, regardless of affordability as there are far more lower end properties than there are higher end.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Other than the two distorting spikes at stamp duty thresholds, the pattern of sales by price also shows a sharp decrease as value increases.

Why relevant? And wrong (see below).

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Other than the two distorting spikes at stamp duty thresholds, the pattern of sales by price also shows a sharp decrease as value increases.

The two "spikes" are caused by the move from £25k price range columns to £50k, then £200k (e.g. to compare like for like with the lower price ranges the 300-500 range should be one eighth of that height in average), then £500k price range columns. I guess that the smallness of the 250-300 category is partly an SD thing.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The biggest crux in your argument, and one that's now plain for all to see, is the mean is moving away from the median, .

Graham, you prize ninny.

The mean will almost always increase away from the median In numerical terms in an inflationary environment.

If the median wage is 30k and the mean is 40k then the percentage is 75%, but the difference is 10k

Then move on 20 years....

If the median wage is 60k and the mean is 80k then the percentage is still 75%, but the difference is 20k

In real terms however, ie, in spending power terms, there is little difference.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In real terms however, ie, in spending power terms, there is little difference.

And you call me a ninny!?

LOL. That's about the stupidiest thing I have heard you say. This is nothing to do with inflation, it's about wages. Inflation is a secondary factor. Footballers wages didnt go from thousands to millions within a few years just through inflation....but they WILL drag the mean up.

Destroy my figures above Hamish....go on....

ILW

As a percentage, would anyone have an estimate of what proportion of voters would stand to gain directly from cheaper houses as opposed to higher priced houses.

ukcarper

Graham

2011 full time male mean £36,511 median £28,409 all median £21,326

1997 full time male mean £21,601 median £18,558 all median £13,983

So all median was 77.8% of male full time mean and all median was 58%

in 1997 the figures were 85% and 64% so you are right to some extent.

If we reduce full time mean to bring it in line to 1997 it would be £33,422 so earnings to house price ratio becomes 4.77

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What relevance is this to the discussion?

Seriously?

You post a graph of income distribution to prove houses are unaffordable to the average person...... And then claim a graph of house price distribution is of no relevance?

there are far more lower end properties than there are higher end.

Exactly.

There are indeed far more lower priced houses than higher priced houses.

A fact that seems to be lost on you.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

in 1997 the figures were 85% and 64% so you are right to some extent.

LOL, I can't be right "to some extent". The figures are above, and apart from a calculation gone wrong, though I don't think it has, it's clear as night follows day that the median wage has fallen away from the mean wage, meaning the graph is generously ignoring a £40,000 difference in salary vs house price.

It's just a rigid graph compaing 2 datasets as I said.

The data within the time period, however, has changed, and changed significantly, which the graph ignores.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Seriously?

You post a graph of income distribution to prove houses are unaffordable to the average person......

I posted the graph as a representation of median vs mean. Nothing to do with that you said. You seem a tad confused in this thread.

Destroy my figures....go onnnnnnn

Ultimately, I have just categorically proven that house prices are about 40k overvalued. But if you ignore the mean wage moving away from the median wage and pretend most people are on 37k a year....your bubble remains intact.