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

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

But they are not. That's a what if.

My whole point surrounds the fact that the disparity is growing, and the graph doesn't show it.

This must be one of the longest "arguments" had on here!

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But they are not. That's a what if.

My whole point surrounds the fact that the disparity is growing, and the graph doesn't show it.

This must be one of the longest "arguments" had on here!

No all it say is that over the last 15 years it has grown to get a trend you would have to plot the difference over the last 15 years the figures are on ONS if you want to do it.

Don't forget that mean is drag down by the number of people working part time.

wotsthat

I think I'm going to stick with the recognised indices that compare prices to earnings and continue to take them with sufficient salt appropriate to the methodologies.

At least the methodologies are clear, the maths is correct and I'm not deafened by axes being ground when looking at them.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I think I'm going to stick with the recognised indices that compare prices to earnings and continue to take them with sufficient salt appropriate to the methodologies.

At least the methodologies are clear, the maths is correct and I'm not deafened by axes being ground when looking at them.

Cool. I suppose the added boinus if you can keep your rosy view on the world and never look past it and question how the graph is made up

I think I have made some extremely valid points, backed up by raw data, which is pretty much undeniable. If at the end of that you revert to "well, I think i would rather ignore all that" that's fine. But don't whinge that others question what you won't allow yourself too.

ukcarper

I think you are missing the point the workforce has changed and the all mean figure includes part time. I thought the argument was that in the past you only one member of family needed to work in which case using full time male makes sense. I agree we should be using median not mean but as Nationwide figures use median why don't we just use them.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think I have made some extremely valid points,

I think the biggest point you have made is that the disparity between median and mean has grown.

I've certainly never disagreed with that.

I've been saying for some time that potentially we had been living in an unprecedented era where homeownership levels were abnormally high and that unfortunately these may continue to decrease.

This of course is as a result of fewer people being able to afford property.

Fewer of the mass can afford..... Why?..........
Because there is not an over supply of property to reduce the prices.
Becuase household income has increased compared to previous generations.

There is a seperation of discussion here, between : -

1) Properties being affordable to the average (includes part time / non workers who may never be home owners)

and

2) Properties being affordable to home buyers (Generally higher household income earners)

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Cool. I suppose the added boinus if you can keep your rosy view on the world and never look past it and question how the graph is made up

I think I have made some extremely valid points, backed up by raw data, which is pretty much undeniable. If at the end of that you revert to "well, I think i would rather ignore all that" that's fine. But don't whinge that others question what you won't allow yourself too.

Nothing to do with having a rosy view. Existing indices have been published by competent people for many years so trends can be easily seen. I'll just take the graphs for what they are - proxies for looking at price/ earnings ratios over time using different methodologies and datasets.

I'm interested to see how the new 'Devon Price/ Earnings Index' develops but I can hardly be accused of being blinkered by pointing out that it compares two time points only and has been proven to contain incorrect maths. I'd expect that if you expanded the data to include all yearly data points between 1997 & 2011 and plotted against time you end up with a graph that followed the same pattern as, say, Nationwide.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Don't forget that mean is drag down by the number of people working part time.

It's not, the mean on the graph used looks only at male full time wages.

But, your point about dragging down is a point I was trying to make earlier....that even though the jobs landscape has changed, the graph won't care about that either, it will just look at a smaller and smaller group of people to draw the same conclusion.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not, the mean on the graph used looks only at male full time wages.

But, your point about dragging down is a point I was trying to make earlier....that even though the jobs landscape has changed, the graph won't care about that either, it will just look at a smaller and smaller group of people to draw the same conclusion.

The Halifax is mean Nationwide is Median overall mean is not that relevent as part time workers have never been able to buy.

Perhaps the levels of Home ownership in the 70s and 80s are more realistic and the higher figures of the 90s and early 2000s where a blip caused by the lower than average prices in the 90s and lax lending in the early 2000s.