Rightmove March +1.6% MoM +6.8% YoY

AndyGuil

chucknorris wrote: »

I agree, but IMO in London right now prices don't represent value.

For the job opportunities, salary, experience, commuting and convenience it can't be beaten. You are not just buying a property, you are buying a lot more.

chucknorris

AndyGuil wrote: »

For the job opportunities, salary, experience, commuting and convenience it can't be beaten. You are not just buying a property, you are buying a lot more.

I agree and that is exactly why I came down South, but you don't have to live in London to work in London, I live in Dorking and work in London. Although I did actually live in London for 15 years and we do still own London 8 properties.


EDIT: I have never regretted moving out of London, I really enjoy living rural Surrey.

AndyGuil

chucknorris wrote: »

I agree and that is exactly why I came down South, but you don't have to live in London to work in London, I live in Dorking and work in London. Although I did actually live in London for 15 years and we do still own London 8 properties.

Absolutely. Often if you need more property for your money then you can move out to achieve this. The disadvantage is the cost of commuting, exposed to tranaport issues with no alternative and then their can be quite a bit more to the commute once you add changing trains and travelling on other transport such as bus or underground. You don't need to live in London to benefit for the opportunities career-wise but you don't have the experience or convenience of being in London.

chucknorris

AndyGuil wrote: »

but you don't have the experience or convenience of being in London.

For about the last 2 years I really disliked living in London, for me it isn't about getting more property for my money (even though you can), it is about the quality of my life. I've just come back from a run in the Surrey hills with my dog, it was less than a 5 min drive from my house. My house is a 5 min walk to the station, which is about 50 mins away from Victoria. It's horses for courses though, but living in London just does not appeal to me anymore.

moneyinmypocket

Most young people these days are more concerned with running a car, going on holidays and having to have the latest clothes/gadgets.

Back in the 70s and 80s families didn't always have a car, go on holidays, bought second hand clothes and tightened the budget strings.

While there may be some young people who will do this most wouldn't I suspect.

The culture now days is a very much "I want it all now".

92203

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

Most young people these days are more concerned with running a car, going on holidays and having to have the latest clothes/gadgets.

Back in the 70s and 80s families didn't always have a car, go on holidays, bought second hand clothes and tightened the budget strings.

While there may be some young people who will do this most wouldn't I suspect.

The culture now days is a very much "I want it all now".

I think that is quite a myopic and generalistic view you have there, and is certainly not the case amongst many of the professional and career minded people I know. Perhaps you need widen the basis of your opinions beyond the confines of what you read in the Daily Mail or see depicted on TV soap operas.

The "I want it now" and "something for nothing" cultures are not new, being evident across many different cross sections of society, both young and old, rich and poor.

There is very clearly a disparity between the cost of accommodation and wages in this country. Most of the people I know who have bought houses have relied upon inheritance or parental assistance to get on the housing ladder. Very few are able to say that they did it 100% off their own backs.

Inflated housing costs are beginning to become a political issue, which will gather momentum as the millennial generation come of age.

buglawton

In the 60s a radiogram could cost £50-£90, a TV £120.
Multiply by 10 to get today's money.
A 7" single (MP3 today) was 6 shillings or say £3 today.
Yet everyone was buying them as soon as they could, bigger items via 'hire purchase' or maybe expensive rental deals. Spending on fashion by young people was also rocketing.
Not really that much difference from today...

ukcarper

buglawton wrote: »

In the 60s a radiogram could cost £50-£90, a TV £120.
Multiply by 10 to get today's money.
A 7" single (MP3 today) was 6 shillings or say £3 today.
Yet everyone was buying them as soon as they could, bigger items via 'hire purchase' or maybe expensive rental deals. Spending on fashion by young people was also rocketing.
Not really that much difference from today...

There was one big difference unless you had the cash you couldn't buy, HP was not easy to get.


I don't think people have changed that much and if the easy credit of today was available in 60s people would have used it.


The big difference in the 60s and 70s was people generally lived with their parents and save for deposit on house before getting married very few rented before they bought and very few single people bought.

buglawton

Moot point. Average age of first marriage for a female was around 24 in the 60s, is around 30 now.

chucky

buglawton wrote: »

Moot point. Average age of first marriage for a female was around 24 in the 60s, is around 30 now.

The moot point is a moot point.

Proportionately less people are getting married now than in the 60s.