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

CLAPTON

Windofchange wrote: »

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.

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

[Deleted User]

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The cost of going on a butlins holiday is the same as going on a foreign holiday today.

I've just priced up Butlins (7 days) vs our cruise (12 days) and there's only £700 difference (this is for 2 adults, 2 kids). On a daily basis it is cheaper to stay on a decent cruise ship than it is Butlins.

We like butlins, and we'll go out of season, but it certainly it can be just as expensive as going abroad.

wotsthat

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.

People have more money today, there's more to spend it on and payment methods have been introduced to speed transactions to reduce thinking time - of course spending has increased - it's silly to try and pretend this isn't the case.

That's before there's a discussion about generational attitudes to saving.

[Deleted User]

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The cost of going on a butlins holiday is the same as going on a foreign holiday today.

I've just priced up Butlins (7 days) vs our cruise (12 days) and there's only £700 difference (this is for 2 adults, 2 kids). On a daily basis it is cheaper to stay on a decent cruise ship than it is Butlins.

We like butlins, and we'll go out of season, but it certainly it can be just as expensive as going abroad.

(To be fair, we got a cracking deal on the cruise..)

HPI has been a long term trend, so calling it confirmation bias is probably wrong. The problem we face is that we now have HPI due to scarcity and low interest rates, not due to salary inflation

missbiggles1

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.

Holiday camps in the 50s and 60s were very different from what they're like today - accommodation was basic with shared facilities and they were very cheap. It's only because they've chosen to take the brand somewhat upmarket and improve facilities that you can compare the costs with a holiday abroad nowadays.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

Not sure people do now to be honest!

What evidence do you have to state otherwise? Or are you just guessing that everyone saving a deposit these days splurges their hard eaned on foreign holidays?

I don't fail to "grasp" anything. You are just stating your (IMHO) misguided opinion on everyone who's a younger than you and I don't agree with it. Stating a bigoted opinion doesn't mean it's true.

Graham_Devon

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Holiday camps in the 50s and 60s were very different from what they're like today - accommodation was basic with shared facilities and they were very cheap. It's only because they've chosen to take the brand somewhat upmarket and improve facilities that you can compare the costs with a holiday abroad nowadays.

Some were. Not all.

But look at some foreign holidays today - exactly the same. Cheap, shared accomodation. Infact hostel type accomodation is booming.

The only thing that's different is the destination.

I suppose next you'll be telling us no one ever got drunk on holiday in the decades past?

missbiggles1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Some were. Not all.

But look at some foreign holidays today - exactly the same. Cheap, shared accomodation. Infact hostel type accomodation is booming.

The only thing that's different is the destination.

I suppose next you'll be telling us no one ever got drunk on holiday in the decades past?

They were - I was there.

And no, people didn't get drunk on a regular basis on holidays in those days - it would've been considered demeaning and embarrassing and your friends would've looked down on you.

Graham_Devon

missbiggles1 wrote: »

They were - I was there.

What - at every single holiday destination? Busy women!

And no, people didn't get drunk on a regular basis on holidays in those days - it would've been considered demeaning and embarrassing and your friends would've looked down on you.

Ahh of course. No one ever got drunk or did anything remotely risque in the swinging 60's. :doh:

missbiggles1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What - at every single holiday destination? Busy women!

Ahh of course. No one ever got drunk or did anything remotely risque in the swinging 60's. :doh:

Because that group of young men having a drink are all blind drunk, aren't they? They're all lying in the gutter, vomiting and wetting themselves as well - anybody can see that!

Graham, you have absolutely no grasp of social history or understanding of the different social mores that used to be the norm.