London Has Peaked

lisyloo

Is it possible people will square wanting the best jobs and culture with sharing more?

This is happenning already.
Certainly for those who can come from much poorer countries for a temporary period and then go back home to "live like a king", it would be acceptable.
For many young people and students it would be acceptable to share.

For most middle-aged and certainly married people it would be unacceptable to share sleeping quarters.
I'm 46 and been living with DH for 24 years. I'd certainly be exhausting all other options (career change, moving to another part of the country, early retirement, emigration etc.) before sharing.

I love London but I believe there is certainly a point where it simply wouldn't be worth living there. This price point might be different for everyone because we all measure quality of life differently but there is certainly a limit in my view.
Those who do long commutes may have hit their personal limit already.

I'm just wondering whether we have got to that point now.
It might not be it might be mortgage availability, fear over interest rates, tax changes etc.
But there has got to be a point it simply isn't worth it hasn't there?

wotsthat

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

i thought that with LR property prices are measured by comparing the price it sold for with the previous sale price.
is this not the case?

All the indices use different statistical methodologies to try and present a 'typical' or 'average' house type. Land Reg use matched pairs to attempt a real like for like comparison.

Land Reg claim this is the most accurate way to track house prices but arguments about which index is best for tracking the real world are a bit 2008 and depend on your version of reality.

danothy

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

i thought that with LR property prices are measured by comparing the price it sold for with the previous sale price.
is this not the case?

This is not the case [in the figures I have quoted and charted]. The Land Registry records all actual sale prices and dates. The average price of all the house sales in a given month is the average house price in that month. If that average goes up from one month to the next it doesn't require that the same houses were sold.

You have demonstrated a marked lack of understanding regarding the meaning of the figures you are pontificating about. It's no wonder your being derided. It's clear to me that you are suffering from confirmation bias on this topic, what's not clear to me is what is motivating the cognitive position you seek to defend.

wotsthat

danothy wrote: »

This is not the case [in the figures I have quoted and charted]. The Land Registry records all actual sale prices and dates. The average price of all the house sales in a given month is the average house price in that month. If that average goes up from one month to the next it doesn't require that the same houses were sold.

I think that's where Bubble's issue is. I don't think he realises that the data will be statistically adjusted to account for the fact that all properties aren't purchased on the same day each year in perpetuity.

According to the land reg site of their 19 million transactions 7 million are now matched pairs and obviously this increases every month. I assume over time this means the index should become more and more accurate.

Bubble_and_Squeak

danothy wrote: »

This is not the case [in the figures I have quoted and charted]. The Land Registry records all actual sale prices and dates. The average price of all the house sales in a given month is the average house price in that month. If that average goes up from one month to the next it doesn't require that the same houses were sold.

You have demonstrated a marked lack of understanding regarding the meaning of the figures you are pontificating about. It's no wonder your being derided. It's clear to me that you are suffering from confirmation bias on this topic, what's not clear to me is what is motivating the cognitive position you seek to defend.

i don't think its as straight forward at that.
they do some comparisons with past data.

wotsthat

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

i don't think its as straight forward at that.
they do some comparisons with past data.

The methodology is here..

http://www.calnea.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Land-Registry-House-Price-Index-Methodology-1995.pdf

They use a repeat sales regression methodology so that their index is based on like for like sales rather than the typical or average house.

Unless you think there's some sort of conspiracy at play I can't really see the point in worrying about how it's collated.

Bubble_and_Squeak

wotsthat wrote: »

The methodology is here..

http://www.calnea.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Land-Registry-House-Price-Index-Methodology-1995.pdf

They use a repeat sales regression methodology so that their index is based on like for like sales rather than the typical or average house.

Unless you think there's some sort of conspiracy at play I can't really see the point in worrying about how it's collated.

yes, this makes me think the data is dodgy
VERY dodgy

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=27210821&sale=440056&country=england

danothy

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

i don't think its as straight forward at that.
they do some comparisons with past data.

This is a prime example of your selective reasoning. You have even quoted my statement "in the figures I have quoted and charted". It is as simple as that, because I downloaded the sale listings, in their entirety, and plotted the monthly averages.

wotsthat

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

yes, this makes me think the data is dodgy
VERY dodgy

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=27210821&sale=440056&country=england

Exceptions don't prove rules.

Bubble_and_Squeak

wotsthat wrote: »

Exceptions don't prove rules.

but this does undermine the validity of the data