The Shame of Britain. Young shredded in inter-generational economic meat grinder

ukcarper

jay213 wrote: »

The point is in the 90s you didn't need 2 salaries to buy a house. There's a few people that I work with that bought houses on just 1 salary, some as a couple but still very low house prices of 40 - 60k for some of them. They still earn 20k now and have houses worth between 200 to 300k, one was nearly finished and was complaining about her mortgage payments of 200 and something pounds.

Couple of questions.

Since the 90s wages have increased by how much?

Since the 90s houses have increased by how much?

Do you think you would have got on the housing ladder in today's market? Well it's not really a housing ladder anymore is it, the prices have stopped going up so there ain't anymore hopping of the next rung up due to hpi that you guys experienced in your days and think is normal in these days.

Since 1989 house prices have increased by 2.7x and wages have doubled.

Bantex_2

ukcarper wrote: »

Since 1989 house prices have increased by 2.7x and wages have doubled.

In London prices have increased 4 or 5 fold since 1989.

chucky

Bantex wrote: »

In London prices have increased 4 or 5 fold since 1989.

So salaries haven't risen as much or is it that house prices were undervalued in the 1990s.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Since 1989 house prices have increased by 2.7x and wages have doubled.

Which is all well and good. Makes it seem like not much of an issue.

But you have to look at the actual figures. Only then can you see the huge problem with what you have stated which stating it as "2x and 2.7x" completely overlooks.

Shelter analysed house prices and earnings across England for the period between 1997 and 2012 and found that while the average price of a home had increased more than threefold, from £75,762 to £253,816, average wages had gone up by much less, from £16,500 to £25,932.

9.5k extra in wages.

But 178k extra for the house.

Meaning the house has increased 18x that of your wage increase.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

So salaries haven't risen as much or is it that house prices were undervalued in the 1990s.

House prices in the 90's weren't really undervalued. They just look that way now on any graph due to the huge increase since then bringing the trend line up due to the weight of the increases.



House prices were infact pretty much static between 89 and 99.

There was nothing undervalued about house prices in the 90's. They just look that way now due to the curve on the trendline which the price rises between 2001 and 2007 has provided.

And in any case, if you are going to describe house prices are undervalued in the 90's, you'd have to suggest they are overvalued today. Something which I doubt you will be too pleased to do, so will likely ignore that bit completely and go off on a tangent!

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

House prices in the 90's weren't really undervalued. They just look that way now on any graph

Oh wow... It just looks like it on any graph... Oh dear, I feel a contradiction coming up within the next paragraph...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

House prices were infact pretty much static between 89 and 99.

There was nothing undervalued about house prices in the 90's. They just look that way now due to the curve on the trendline which the price rises between 2001 and 2007 has provided.

So if wages rose each year but house prices stayed static you confirm that house prices were in fact undervalued... But we will just blame it on the graph, it looks like it but it isn't...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Something which I doubt you will be too pleased to do, so will likely ignore that bit completely and go off on a tangent!

And then you post this and wonder why people treat you like an idiot. I really do feel sorry for you, I really do... There is some people in society who are a lost cause who could be defined as a subspecies.

ukcarper

Bantex wrote: »

In London prices have increased 4 or 5 fold since 1989.

Have you got a link to prove that.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

House prices were infact pretty much static between 89 and 99

Did wages increase at all during this 10 year period?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which is all well and good. Makes it seem like not much of an issue.

But you have to look at the actual figures. Only then can you see the huge problem with what you have stated which stating it as "2x and 2.7x" completely overlooks.

9.5k extra in wages.

But 178k extra for the house.

Meaning the house has increased 18x that of your wage increase.

Nationwide show house prices rising from £60k in 1997 to £171k in 2014.


And we are back to 1997 when prices were at there cheapest.


I am not saying things aren't bad but people always make out it is worst than it is. It is worst in London but what do you suggest is done.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Nationwide show house prices rising from £60k in 1997 to £171k in 2014.


And we are back to 1997 when prices were at there cheapest.


I am not saying things aren't bad but people always make out it is worst than it is. It is worst in London but what do you suggest is done.

I'm certainly not disagreeing, just pointing out that when the increases are put across in the context of "2.7x" it really doesn't mean much and makes things look much better than reality.

The actual figures though, which make up that 2.7x you referred to paint a completely different picture. It's the percentage problem we all come across so often!