The dissapearing property ladder

wotsthat

lukeh23 wrote: »

Really amazed at how those who were fortunate of better times, downright refute the reality of those now facing much more difficult times to own a home. I can't help but think of them as trolls, I can't see what else they can be or what motive they might have.

Houses may well be more expensive than whatever arbitrary price you've decided everyone used to pay and it's definitely much harder to leave school with no qualifications and walk into a job paying an average wage. However almost everything else in your life has been advantaged by being 23 today rather than 23 in the good old days.

Prices go up and down - there's never been any stability. I purchased luckily at one of the cheapest times ever. A few years earlier and it would've been one of the most expensive times.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't think I did to be honest.

You've just said exactly the same thing, just urned it upside down to make out it's jobs that are the issue, not prices.

So wheres the evidence for your claim? How are you so sure that prices are not the issue, it's actually jobs?

Surely, it's both?

So you think young people are not facing a job problem. I was earning more than average earnings by the time I was 22 that was without a degree how many 22 year olds are doing that now.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

So you think young people are not facing a job problem. I was earning more than average earnings by the time I was 22 that was without a degree how many 22 year olds are doing that now.

Well, theres a low pay issue. We appear to have had a bit of a race to the bottom when it comes to the minimum wage. It now appears to account for so many jobs.

However, you are just giving another example of how you possibly had it better then.

Now only could you afford a bigger house. You could earn better wages at a younger age too. And if you went to uni, don't forget the grants you got.....that's grants, not debts.

You are painting a picture of how much better it was, while at the same time putting across the argument of how much worse things were.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well, theres a low pay issue. We appear to have had a bit of a race to the bottom when it comes to the minimum wage. It now appears to account for so many jobs.

However, you are just giving another example of how you possibly had it better then.

Now only could you afford a bigger house. You could earn better wages at a younger age too. And if you went to uni, don't forget the grants you got.....that's grants, not debts.

You are painting a picture of how much better it was, while at the same time putting across the argument of how much worse things were.

I have never disputed I had it better as far as job prospects and I agree house prices are high but if people had better job prospects they would be able to buy. We faced different problems to the young of today but I think the obsession with house prices is diverting the attention from the real problems.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I have never disputed I had it better as far as job prospects and I agree house prices are high but if people had better job prospects they would be able to buy. We faced different problems to the young of today but I think the obsession with house prices is diverting the attention from the real problems.

The obesession with house prices is likely due to the fact that it is a fundemental cost of living which effects us all.

It effects us far more than it does other costs of living. Partly due to the size of the costs, but partly because there is little anyone can do about it.

House prices feed through not only to buying a house, but renting one too.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The obesession with house prices is likely due to the fact that it is a fundemental cost of living which effects us all.

It effects us far more than it does other costs of living. Partly due to the size of the costs, but partly because there is little anyone can do about it.

House prices feed through not only to buying a house, but renting one too.

That might be true but if all you can earn is minimum wage or at best living wage you will be in trouble even if house prices return to long term average.

chucknorris

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

They are petrified of political gain from more rent controls and rights for tenants... if they really are providing a public service as they like to think, let's regulate it as such.

Have I missed something here? I ask because I am not even concerned (never mind 'petrified'), sure if labour win the next election (by the way they have now slipped out to 13/8 on betfair on the 'win most seats' market) they may introduce some form of rent controls, they have indicated that they would consider:

1. Introduce 3 year tenancies, really? If so, that's great news, we have been trying for years to coax our tenants into longer contracts. But they prefer the flexibility of one year contracts, then be allowed to move onto periodical contracts. A change of tenancy creates quite a bit of work, it would be really advantageous to move to 3 year contracts, but I tell you what, our tenants will not be happy about it.

2. Limit rent increases during the longer term tenancies, once we have a good tenants , we do this anyway, rather than take a chance of getting someone not suitable (despite the checks) moving in. We have a tenant moving out next month who has been with me for about 12 years (notice I said me, rather than us, that's because I think that he moved in before I even met my wife). We intend to market the flat at £1,800 (from £1,495) per month for the incoming tenant(s).

So please, can you point out why I should be 'petrified'.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You've just said exactly the same thing, just turned it upside down to make out it's jobs that are the issue, not prices.

Graham,
What is the root cause of the issue?

Of course, having a decent paying job would help facilitate increased affordability and higher prices, but neither help solve the root cause as the current jobs are able to sustain the prices as they are.

You need a catalyst in order to drive down prices and increase affordability.

So I wonder again if you can deduce what needs to be targeted in order to facilitate a reduction in prices.

P.S. It's not job, wages, asking prices or BTL LL's.

setmefree2

What are they doing instead? They're renting from private landlords - 21% were doing that 10 years ago, now it's 48%.

Me and OH bought a flat in London in 1987 when we were 25. One of the main reasons we did this was because of the dire state of the property available to rent. I'm sure we may well have rented longer if there had been nice property available. By the way, we sold this flat for £500 less than we paid for it in 1993

IveSeenTheLight

setmefree2 wrote: »

Me and OH bought a flat in London in 1987 when we were 25. One of the main reasons we did this was because of the dire state of the property available to rent. I'm sure we may well have rented longer if there had been nice property available. By the way, we sold this flat for £500 less than we paid for it in 1993

I'm interested, was your mortgage interest more or less than the equivalent rent for a similar property.

From the outside, it sounds like it cost you £500 over a 6 year period, to live in a property for 6 years at a better condition than you could have rented.

You didn't have a landlord who would always potentially threaten your rights to live there, impacted your options for decor, infringed on the level of maintenance or increase the rent.

You probably paid a lower rate of mortgage interest over those 6 years as opposed to the increasing rents which would have been applied.

Financially and securely you probable still benefited despite the reduction in capital of £500