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

ukcarper

MARTYM8` wrote: »

In reality if you only own one home and never move until you die or move into a care home – which in reality probably applies to most pensioners – you haven’t really seen any monetary benefit from the rise in the price of your house. Unless you downsize or equity release its all on paper – and most don’t as they quite like the home and garden they spent 25 years paying for!

Assuming the council doesn’t take your cash for your care fees your kids will of course see the benefit – but potentially they may be in their 60s before they do assuming you live until your late 80s.

The difference being compared to today that in most cases you were able to buy an average house on an average salary.

The median salary for a single person now in London with a 10% deposit would just about stretch (4 times salary mortgage) to a one bed flat in a council tower block in East Ham or Dagenham – my parents were able to buy a nice house back in the early 70s in a relatively nice suburban area for 1.5 times average salaries on a single salary. When they moved in the area was mainly lower middle class/working class types – now on one side they have a doctor and on the other two Chartered Accountants (who are priced out of more expensive areas).

This hasn't always been the case as I have said many times which is conveniently ignore by people like you, I had to pay 5x my above average income to buy a house in the 70s and I had to move over 30 miles from London and commute to do it.

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well if that's what you appear to believe this is all about, let's look at the generation this article is about.

Presumably that generation was always content with their lot? Never moaned about the way things were? Just got on with things? Worked harder? Took it in their stride and didn't ask for more?

It's strange therefore, that this is also the generation that held the biggest strikes in the last century. They held some of the biggest protests....poll tax riots anyone?

Unless it's a figment of historys imagination, it would appear babyboomers were one of the most vocal and active generations in venting their aggivations and organising riots and protests in order to have a good old moan at what was presented to them on their plate.

Perhaps this generation show growing a set of bolx.

silverwhistle

ukcarper wrote: »

I just wondered if Graham could work out who was better off after pole tax was replaced by council tax (reintroduction of rates by another name)

I'm not sure what credibility we can allow you when you can't even get the name of the tax correct, and I suspect you've no idea on its etymology.

The problem with these threads is that they don't address the points being made, which is, is the "status quo" of ever increasing property asset prices one which is desirable or sustainable? At 60 as a single woman I own my own house, my nephew and niece do too and their kids (my great nephew and niece) will probably be OK, given the resources in the family. I may well inherit too, if care home fees don't come into play at some stage. No issue with that as I've never lived my life in the expectation of inheritance.

What I don't do, which many here seem to, is extrapolate this to everbody else's family. Not everybody drives, nor does everybody use the internet or haves broadband available (although that may be changing slowly), nor does everybody have the same equalities of opportunity or resources, and current policies are reinforcing that division, not helping it.

So given that some people are not sharing in this increase in property value, what percentage of someone's income do they feel appropriate to pay for the basic roof over your head? Should the current upward trend have no limit. Should housing take an ever increasing share of national income above more productive investments? People necessary to the functioning of London, for example, are already leaving the place if they don't have the advantages of capital or family resources. Just blaming people on housing benefit or the other usual targets of divisive blame politics still doesn't address the fundamental issue of supply.

Shooting the messenger doesn't address the issue in the slightest.

ukcarper

silverwhistle wrote: »

I'm not sure what credibility we can allow you when you can't even get the name of the tax correct, and I suspect you've no idea on its etymology.

The problem with these threads is that they don't address the points being made, which is, is the "status quo" of ever increasing property asset prices one which is desirable or sustainable? At 60 as a single woman I own my own house, my nephew and niece do too and their kids (my great nephew and niece) will probably be OK, given the resources in the family. I may well inherit too, if care home fees don't come into play at some stage. No issue with that as I've never lived my life in the expectation of inheritance.

What I don't do, which many here seem to, is extrapolate this to everbody else's family. Not everybody drives, nor does everybody use the internet or haves broadband available (although that may be changing slowly), nor does everybody have the same equalities of opportunity or resources, and current policies are reinforcing that division, not helping it.

So given that some people are not sharing in this increase in property value, what percentage of someone's income do they feel appropriate to pay for the basic roof over your head? Should the current upward trend have no limit. Should housing take an ever increasing share of national income above more productive investments? People necessary to the functioning of London, for example, are already leaving the place if they don't have the advantages of capital or family resources. Just blaming people on housing benefit or the other usual targets of divisive blame politics still doesn't address the fundamental issue of supply.

Shooting the messenger doesn't address the issue in the slightest.

I'm not really sure what you are going on about and nit picking does not help your argument. If people want to come on here and blame the problems they face on a particular group of people they should expect criticism. If you take the time to look back through the cost of housing over the last 50 years you will see that prices have fluctuated and there has not been a uniform increase. Personally I think prices in London and the South East have become to high but whinging and trying to blame one particular generation is in my opinion stupid. I personally know people who are suffering from the effects of high prices but they are not whinging and blaming other people.

ruggedtoast

I think it has become pretty apparent now that if Gen X and Y are expecting the Boomers to do anything meaningful on their own to alleviate the housing crisis they created, then we are going to have a very long wait. They are a huge demographic bulge that has been responsible for putting every government in and out of power since the 70s.

But 10 million renters will not be silenced forever.

Cornucopia

Ah yes, it's a conspiracy of 51-69-year-olds. :eek:

Do they have secret handshakes?

I'm Generation X, BTW. Can I ask that you don't speak on my behalf, if you are not?

Thanks.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I think it has become pretty apparent now that if Gen X and Y are expecting the Boomers to do anything meaningful on their own to alleviate the housing crisis they created, then we are going to have a very long wait. They are a huge demographic bulge that has been responsible for putting every government in and out of power since the 70s.

But 10 million renters will not be silenced forever.

Why are Gen X not responsible they benefited from very low prices.

Cornucopia

I gave up reading the original article - it's badly written, biased and some of it makes no sense.

I'm not actually convinced that the author understands the term "confirmation bias", or that it has any relevance here.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well if that's what you appear to believe this is all about, let's look at the generation this article is about.

Presumably that generation was always content with their lot? Never moaned about the way things were? Just got on with things? Worked harder? Took it in their stride and didn't ask for more?

It's strange therefore, that this is also the generation that held the biggest strikes in the last century. They held some of the biggest protests....poll tax riots anyone?

Unless it's a figment of historys imagination, it would appear babyboomers were one of the most vocal and active generations in venting their aggivations and organising riots and protests in order to have a good old moan at what was presented to them on their plate.

Babyboomers aren't mentioned in the article (that's your confirmation bias leading to that view).

If the criteria for 'doing well from house prices' was the ability to buy a house at less than the cost of the long term average then I'd suggest people of your age could be included i.e. Gen X. You could have benefited by buying a house at prices not seen in a generation when interest rates were falling and deposits were !!!!!! all. You chose a series of inappropriate cars and the slots instead.

If any generation is getting the shaft it ain't ours.

the_flying_pig

sorry I've not read the whole thread but the snippet from the 1966 tory manifesto is genuinely extraordinary:

We intend to see that this entire nation is decently housed...We are determined to see house prices in reach of those eager to buy homes of their own...

• ...we will raise the housing target to an annual rate of 500,000 homes by the end of 1968. We reached our target before, and we will hit it again. We will make use of every new method that works to get the houses up and keep the prices down. And there will be major reforms in planning procedure to increase the supply of land for building.
• ... the next Conservative Government will speed up council house building... we will insist on sensible local authority rent policies.

If I was looking to put together an argument that there's been a stitch-up in favour of the UK's babyboomers, I'd certainly include this as evidence.

all of these ideas that today get suggested as ways forward by people who babyboomers today attempt to paint as, y'know, idle, jealous little deviants or whatever, fifty years ago they were so mainstream as to be the proudly trumpeted policy of the conservative party. what changed?