"Confirmation Bias" among generation who did well from house prices

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The very fact that you describe my post looking at the difference in holidays that people took as waffling......but then thank a post which said no one ever got drunk in the 60's shows your position on all of this. it's not about what's posted - it's about the poster who posted it.

Yeah...be careful next time you thank a post, wotsthat.
This is serious business you know.

caronoel

Poor old Graham - he never can quite get it right!

wotsthat

mayonnaise wrote: »

Yeah...be careful next time you thank a post, wotsthat.
This is serious business you know.

I ignored that but there's some irony when he's complaining about the lack of context in the data being posted when he then analyses who I've thanked to build his case.

Only rewired is as obsessed about thanks but I'm sure that's just coincidence.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Looking at ONS figures the strange thing is that the growth in home ownership started to slow down in 90s when prices in relation to earnings were at their lowest.

i think you are reading it wrong

do the graph as the percentage fall in renters over the last decade it would give you a better idea

for going from 20% owners to 30% is a big jump in ownership but going from 80% to 90% is actually a much bigger much harder much more impressive jump. They are both 10% increases in owners but the latter is a halving of renters while the former is a 12.5% fall in renters

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

The reasons prices have become cheaper are more to do with globalisation than the reasons you give. There is no rule to say that each generation should be better off than the past.

of course each generation should be better off than the last because as a country and as a species we get smarter with time not dumber.

or in general terms "productivity" gets better and better and clearly that should lead to a better and better quality of life...if it didn't why the hell would we do it

and yes globalisation is more productive than nationalisation just like trade between you and your countrymen is more productive than trying to make your own shoes and grow your own chickens and leech your own blood

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

If anyone from Gen X is moaning about not being able to afford to buy a house the issue is something other than house prices.

its not just about not being able to afford to buy a house its about not being able to afford to buy a decent house of a decent size

Not only is much of the UK housing stock extremely expensive, often you are only really buying half a home or even one third of a home.

in the UK the cost to buy a home, per square meter, is a LOT higher than elsewhere. Even in the lower quartile of prices in the UK a new home will set you back £2-3k a square meter.

France and Germany is closer to £1k a square meter for the same metric homes


sure you could say people need to earn more or accept lower quality or lower size but the fact is that per square meter prices here are at least twice what they could be

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

i think you are reading it wrong

do the graph as the percentage fall in renters over the last decade it would give you a better idea

for going from 20% owners to 30% is a big jump in ownership but going from 80% to 90% is actually a much bigger much harder much more impressive jump. They are both 10% increases in owners but the latter is a halving of renters while the former is a 12.5% fall in renters

From 1971 to 2001 home ownership went from 50% to 69% about 2% of which was between 1991 and 2001.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

of course each generation should be better off than the last because as a country and as a species we get smarter with time not dumber.

or in general terms "productivity" gets better and better and clearly that should lead to a better and better quality of life...if it didn't why the hell would we do it

and yes globalisation is more productive than nationalisation just like trade between you and your countrymen is more productive than trying to make your own shoes and grow your own chickens and leech your own blood

That's much to simplistic and the improvements and not spread equally.

Windofchange

CLAPTON wrote: »

so basically you don't see any need to build more houses or restrict demand
but instead believe it is simply a bubble which will be all over soon
and families will be able to buy nice homes in London at a sustainable price?

fascinating

I tell you what is fascinating - your continued inability to read what is posted and to construct an argument based upon that. I think I actually put there are many reasons we are in this mess, but hey, why focus a reply on that when you can carry on with your attempts at one-upmanship based upon what you would like to hear.

I think the warning signs are so obvious it's like we can't see the forest for the trees, or choose not to. I don't have to look very far for an example of the stupidity that has swept through London and the surrounding areas - our pile of bricks and mortar has gone from 485k in 2012 to 725k (ish) today (based on a similar one that sold a few months back). At some point, things will go pop, but to answer your suppositions, I don't think that people will be able to buy a nice house in London for decades. If it went bang tonight, there are enough people with locked in mortgage rates, or no mortgage at all that this will take a long time to unravel to the point where large waves of people notice an increase in their monthly outgoings. Question is, will they sit tight if there is carnage going on around them from those who do have to sell. BTL not profitable anymore, the young couple who stretched themselves too far.

It seems house prices invade every tier of British society. We are obsessed and it's probably why things get so heated on boards such as this one. I actually wish we had a situation where houses were affordable, we lived in them, we brought up families in them, and we got on with the more important things in life.