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

cells

nic_c wrote: »

Surely this is the case? Disposable income is higher now - its okay saying house prices are higher, but so are wages, where as food and clothing hasn't kept pace. People choose to spend there money on "necessities" like high cost mobile tariff, all-singing Sky TV packages, and console games that take up a large part of their monthly income.

Its doubtful that people spend more now on gadgets than they did decades ago. They are just a lot more affordable now so there are more of them

There was a radio program about some woman who had her food mixer for some really lomg amount of time (50 years) amd how they don't make them to last anymore. She went on to say it cost her a whole months wages when she bought it and I though dam you can get one of them now for less than one days wages!

Landofwood

You can bet that "confirmation bias" is the cause of many of the "debates" on this cesspit of a message board.

- Those that have bought a house are desperate to demonstrate that they made the right decision, by constantly bleating on about house prices rising.

- Those that have chosen not to, or cannot afford to, buy a house are desperate to demonstrate that house prices will fall. It makes them feel better.

Both groups of people are exactly the same. Weak people craving confirmation that their decisions are right, and others are wrong.

Cornucopia

Not convinced by that.

Most mature, sensible people would say it was a matter for the individual - a decision that they/their family must take, having understood all the issues the best they can.

The one thing that is true is that some people will rent rather than buy, and some of those people will have that decision more-or-less forced on them for economic or similar reasons.

Then again, some people will choose to rent for lifestyle reasons.

This is why I object to the notion of "confirmation bias". I can tell you whether buying or renting has worked out for me, but I wouldn't presume to comment on other people's experiences, nor to try to predict the outcome for anyone making the decision now.

In fact the term "confirmation bias" strikes me as one that might be used by someone who hasn't understood the issues particularly well, but wants to justify ignoring the positive experiences of many other individuals and families.

At the end of the day you can only do what you think is best. And in an era of housing shortage, the odds are that if Person A declines to buy a property, Person B will already be on the case.

MARTYM8`

Landofwood wrote: »

You can bet that "confirmation bias" is the cause of many of the "debates" on this cesspit of a message board.

- Those that have bought a house are desperate to demonstrate that they made the right decision, by constantly bleating on about house prices rising.

- Those that have chosen not to, or cannot afford to, buy a house are desperate to demonstrate that house prices will fall. It makes them feel better.

Both groups of people are exactly the same. Weak people craving confirmation that their decisions are right, and others are wrong.

There may also be a third group - and a growing group in the country.

People who do own homes - which yes are increasing in value on paper (wonderful - but all on paper as you need a home to live in) - but who see their kids and grandkids and nephews and nieces and godchildren unable to afford a decent home to buy in the area where they grew up.

I am a London homeowner (so are my parents) - lucky me - but no homeowner is an island as the saying goes.

And we are all paying for the consequences via a £25 billion a year spend on housing benefit - which is a direct consequence of the housing mess that has been created.

Think how the deficit could be cut - and other front line services that might be saved (e.g. more social care for those boomers on here who glory in their house prices going up as if it has no consequences:D) if we weren't p*****g so much money up the wall to fund the pensions of buy to let landlords. And imagine the good old days - where people could afford to buy a home on one salary - so kids got proper childcare rather than being farmed out. Is there a reason as to why British kids are apparently the unhappiest in Europe.

Cos housing in my opinion is at the root of so many of this country's problems.

Landofwood

MARTYM8` wrote: »

There may also be a third group - and a growing group in the country.

People who do own homes - which yes are increasing in value on paper (wonderful - but all on paper as you need a home to live in) - but who see their kids and grandkids and nephews and nieces and godchildren unable to afford a decent home to buy in the area where they grew up.

I am a London homeowner (so are my parents) - lucky me - but no homeowner is an island as the saying goes.

And we are all paying for the consequences via a £25 billion a year spend on housing benefit - which is a direct consequence of the housing mess that has been created.

Think how the deficit could be cut - and other front line services that might be saved (e.g. more social care for those boomers on here who glory in their house prices going up as if it has no consequences:D) if we weren't p*****g so much money up the wall to fund the pensions of buy to let landlords. And imagine the good old days - where people could afford to buy a home on one salary - so kids got proper childcare rather than being farmed out. Is there a reason as to why British kids are apparently the unhappiest in Europe.

Cos housing in my opinion is at the root of so many of this country's problems.

I never suggested there weren't other types of people. In fact I hope the majority of people do not fall into groups I've identified

I was just referring to the loonies on this board that I have observed. People like Sibley, Caronoel, Graham and Fordcapri.

Windofchange

CLAPTON wrote: »

you have forgotten to say : build more houses and restrict the demand (population)
easy mistake to make when on a rant.

Ahhh generalisations. A thing some on this board seem very fond of. Assuming a position of superiority by a self-perpetuated sense of intelligence. There is no one solution to this mess. Things have changed and all that.

I stand by my position that anyone who thinks that the current housing situation is either a good thing, or a sustainable position is crazy. It'll unravel. Who knows when or how, but as with all bubbles, it will pop.

As with a previous poster, I post as a mortgage payer in London, rather than a renter as others on here have assumed before. Thing is, unlike yourself, I can see past the end of my nose, and would like a fairer deal for all of society as opposed those who happen to have a house/flat. I think it is more than time that home owners took one for the team.

Thrugelmir

cells wrote: »

Its doubtful that people spend more now on gadgets than they did decades ago. They are just a lot more affordable now so there are more of them

Foreign holidays were a luxury not that long ago.

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Foreign holidays were a luxury not that long ago.

So were Fish Fingers.

Though I'd suggest that for most, foreign holidays are STILL a luxury - and outside of the cheap package deals foreign travel is still very prohibative to a lot of families.

Times change. More people go on foreign holidays yes. But that does not neccesarily mean peolpe have more to spend. It's simply economics.

Since the 50's, families have increasingly taken holidays. Butlins (or the version back then) was huge. The cost of going on a butlins holiday is the same as going on a foreign holiday today.

So making out that people spend more now than they did years ago due to foreign holidays is nonsense really. It's simply a different holiday in different times. What used to be spent on camp package holidays is now spent on a holiday mainly in Spain.

What really gets me in these discussions is people making out all these things are new, while forgetting holiday camps were a massive business in the 50s/60s and 70s.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So were Fish Fingers.

Though I'd suggest that for most, foreign holidays are STILL a luxury - and outside of the cheap package deals foreign travel is still very prohibative to a lot of families.

Times change. More people go on foreign holidays yes. But that does not neccesarily mean peolpe have more to spend. It's simply economics.

Since the 50's, families have increasingly taken holidays. Butlins (or the version back then) was huge. The cost of going on a butlins holiday is the same as going on a foreign holiday today.

So making out that people spend more now than they did years ago due to foreign holidays is nonsense really. It's simply a different holiday in different times. What used to be spent on camp package holidays is now spent on a holiday mainly in Spain.

What really gets me in these discussions is people making out all these things are new, while forgetting holiday camps were a massive business in the 50s/60s and 70s.

Yes people spent money on holidays etc but what you seem unable to grasp is that they didn't when they were saving for a house. I personally had a holiday in Spain before I started to save. As I've said the main difference was people got married earlier and lived with their parents until they did.

According to measuring worth a £1 in 1972 is now worth £10.80 but increase in earnings over that period that for every £1 you earned you would be earning £17.80

Maddybee33

Disgraceful post.
They just can't pop their clogs soon enough eh?

Do you make a habit of straw manning?

:whistle: