We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
House Prices vs earnings
Comments
-
Because their affordability multiples wouldn't be realistic to buy a house.grizzly1911 wrote: »If those NMW/low income workers form part of the pot (as part of a dual income to make up the 65/&70% of homeowners) then why shouldn't they be included in average wages as a comparison? As long as the same method of average is used each time
My argument isn't that house prices are expensive or not, it's the trying to prove house prices are expensive by the single average nominal income. it isn't realistic especially when not everyone will be able to buy property in the first place especially not on a minimum wage single income.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »If those NMW/low income workers form part of the pot (as part of a dual income to make up the 65/-70% of homeowners) then why shouldn't they be included in average wages as a comparison? As long as the same method of average is used each time.
Your therefore requireing an average household income as opposed to the singe average wage.
However, to debate further on this, would you expect a household of two NMW earners or maybe some with benefit earners would be able to secure their own property.
In an ideal world, there would be such a supply of property that it was affordable for all, however remember that if this was so, average workers would then be able to by holiday homes in the highlands / on the coast etc so the surplus would need to be far greater than the population requirements:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Your therefore requireing an average household income as opposed to the singe average wage.
If as was suggested dual income make up a large proportion of those taking out mortgages they will have various incomes included. An average still works providing you always use that as your comparator.
Yes we could have various averages it would just showing varying multipliers. Comparing one with the other wouldn't prove very much as a measure against time only using the same each time.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
However, to debate further on this, would you expect a household of two NMW earners or maybe some with benefit earners would be able to secure their own property.
Why not in certain parts of the country.
Lots of benefit recipients have mortgages, tax credits, child credits, child benefit.
As I have said in many cases the NMW/low wage will be the weaker part of a dual income package.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
In an ideal world, there would be such a supply of property that it was affordable for all, however remember that if this was so, average workers would then be able to by holiday homes in the highlands / on the coast etc so the surplus would need to be far greater than the population requirements
The fact that people can afford to buy one property has got little to do with need or demand for second homes. The fact that people do buy second homes does of course exacerbate the shortage in supply."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
In an ideal world, there would be such a supply of property that it was affordable for all, however remember that if this was so, average workers would then be able to by holiday homes in the highlands / on the coast etc so the surplus would need to be far greater than the population requirements
That's nonsense though really isn't it. All it takes is for a tiny bit of regulation to change that. You may aswell campaign against new building in that instance, and hope for the status-quo forevermore.
Defeatist stance at it's best.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »If as was suggested dual income make up a large proportion of those taking out mortgages they will have various incomes included. An average still works providing you always use that as your comparator.
Yes we could have various averages it would just showing varying multipliers. Comparing one with the other wouldn't prove very much as a measure against time only using the same each time.
The issue is, how do you calculate accurately the "average household income".
Surely this is quite fluid, although arguably as people migrate accorss different households, the average would remain.
I guess essentially you'd be looking at total earnings / number of households.
The problem still remains as to the act of retrospectively calculating and plotting the average household going back in time, which is why the the hostorical comparison remains.grizzly1911 wrote: »As I have said in many cases the NMW/low wage will be the weaker part of a dual income package.
Certainly, IF there was sufficient supply, NMW earners would be able to buy.grizzly1911 wrote: »The fact that people can afford to buy one property has got little to do with need or demand for second homes.
As I stated, if the NMW income households could afford to buy, even average household incomes earners would essentially be so affluent that hey could choose the but n ben / seaside resort for second / third properties.grizzly1911 wrote: »The fact that people do buy second homes does of course exacerbate the shortage in supply.
Which is why I said that the supply would need to be in excess of the current population requirement:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »That's nonsense though really isn't it. All it takes is for a tiny bit of regulation to change that. You may aswell campaign against new building in that instance, and hope for the status-quo forevermore.
Defeatist stance at it's best.
Not defeatest at all Graham, it's called reality.
If all it takes is a tiny bit of regulation, if it's so easy, go campaign for it.
We all agree there is a shortage of property for the population requirement in a Utopian world.
I suggest (not for the first time) that you campaign for more property supply.
I believe everything is possible, however whilst we are where we are, I belive in reality your unlikely to achieve your Utopian expectations.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
Would that have been a Ford - them trying to start in the morning was the Urban Dawn Chorus;)grizzly1911 wrote: »
My first car wouldn't even do the 3 miles to work in the morning , in the damp of winter, without me lifting the bonnet part way, taking the distributor cap off and giving it a wipe round.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards