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

CKhalvashi

I'd vote for lower prices round here, but at the same time, my reasons are much more sinister

CK

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yup, it does.



Wage inflaion is already factored in, as the average wage from each year is used.

I still don't get your £44k as I've already shown the all median is 58% of full time mean

in 1997 it was 64%.

So male full time is now £36.5k and average house price is £159k so multiple is about 4.5 full time male, all median is now £21.3k or 7.5x .

Now if median was still 64% of mean, mean would be £33.3k so the mean to house price ratio would be 4.8x .

Can you explain your £44k.

　
Also with Ref to post 195 perhaps you can explain how it was so much easier for me to buy in 1972 compared to now.
　

Loughton_Monkey

ukcarper wrote: »

.....Can you explain your £44k......

£500 to a fig says he can't.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Surely that depends on whether the wealthier salaries have increased lower than inflation, otherwise if their salary outpaced inflation, they would be more wealthier.

An additional 1% on a £60k per annum salary after statutory deductions is hardly going to make a significant difference.

Not overlooking the fact that changes to child benefit will impact as well.

Given there's still at least a £40 billion hole in the public finances at the end of this parliamentary term. There's going to be no let up on the fiscal squeeze for some time yet.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

An additional 1% on a £60k per annum salary after statutory deductions is hardly going to make a significant difference.

Not overlooking the fact that changes to child benefit will impact as well.

Given there's still at least a £40 billion hole in the public finances at the end of this parliamentary term. There's going to be no let up on the fiscal squeeze for some time yet.

Doesn't alter the fact that your simple statement may not necessarily be true.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

With average wage in decline (buying power). Surely the wealthier will also become poorer.

GD used an example where a high earner on £200k gave himself an increase to £5m to show that the average increases as a result which squeezes out the average person.

Exagerated figures I know, but you can't assume that with average real term wages in decline that the wealthiest are directly affected.

How many times have we heard of pay rises /bonuses being paid to the higher echelongs whilst the average employee is on wage freezes etc.

Due to promotion and annual increases, my wages have increased over 25% in the last two years.
I certainly don't feel poorer as a result.

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

£500 to a fig says he can't.

You're right I can't.

Mostly due to the fact that 44k doesn't even appear in my figures...so would be a tad difficult to explain something I've never stated.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You're right I can't.

Mostly due to the fact that 44k doesn't even appear in my figures...so would be a tad difficult to explain something I've never stated.

It's here....

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well done. And I think it's quite fair to say, that if the mean average used, is adding £44k to the affordability indicators, whereas it was only adding 10k 15 years ago....it's worth looking at and questioning.

So quit with the muddle-tastic nonsense.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You're right I can't.

Mostly due to the fact that 44k doesn't even appear in my figures...so would be a tad difficult to explain something I've never stated.

what about part 2

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's here....

fair enough. slip of the keyboard. The actual sums are on page 7 or 8. They don't include 44k.

ukcarper

Oh I see what he means but I believe my figures show that if median was still the same percentage of mean the average price would now be about 9.5k lower.

My figures compare all median with full time male personally as all includes part time I think we should be comparing full time male mean to full time male median or at least all full time and the difference is smaller on both those.