Renting in your 40's and staring into the abyss

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

If real wages were £1/ hour in 1983 and they're £5/ hour now then someone who wasn't even born in 1983 is benefiting by earning £5/ hour instead of £1/ hour.



Whilst true on an individual level we don't know the details of every individual so we use averages, stats and stuff.

Hard isn't it.

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

And the rest we (you) make up :rotfl:

As someone who has rented by choice throughout their 30's and 40's and will likely never buy you might have some valuable insight for the subject of the OP.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

If real wages were £1/ hour in 1983 and they're £5/ hour now then someone who wasn't even born in 1983 is benefiting by earning £5/ hour instead of £1/ hour. .

Oh my good lord.

I didn't honestly think that's what carper would be suggesting.

So, regardles of the cost of living AT THE TIME for the person working, they are supposed to be happier as inflation in the past has them earning £5 as apposed to £1.

Poor argument. Infact, very poor argument. One of the most ridiculous I've seen in all my time here. The implementation of the minimum wage rips the argument to shreds for a start.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh my good lord.

I didn't honestly think that's what carper would be suggesting.

So, regardles of the cost of living AT THE TIME for the person working, they are supposed to be happier as inflation in the past has them earning £5 as apposed to £1.

Poor argument. Infact, very poor argument.

What part of real wages is difficult to understand?

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

Hard isn't it.

Apparently yes.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

What part of real wages is difficult to understand?

Unbelievable isn't it he can't seem to understand that for every £4 they earn they have £1 more to spend than they would have if earnings hadn't risen more than inflation.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

What part of real wages is difficult to understand?

Oh, I see you are playing the "you don't understand card" - again.

Problem is I do understand. Which is why i ask you to run the same calculation on 2008-13 data.

See if your bias will let you backup the data with the same gusto you are backing this argument up with.

princeofpounds

I think the sad thing is that in these buying vs. renting articles, three really key points are missed.


The first one is that the really valuable feature of owning for society is in many respects security of tenure, rather than actually owning the real estate capital itself.

The inability to make plans based on long-term accommodation can really screw with the ability to make choices that lead to stable, fulfilled lives.


The second point is that the condition and liveability of the housing stock is also hugely important to wellbeing. Landlords have little competitive incentive to invest given the supply/demand imbalance, and tenants have little incentive to invest given insecure tenure. The result is poor condition housing stock.


The third unfortunate point is that the supply/demand imbalance is ultimately largely artificial. There is no shortage of land, and there is no shortage of money to pay for bricks. Many of the people who cannot house themselves in the current market would be perfectly able to combine bricks and land if it were not for the dysfunctional planning system we currently have.


So overall we have a system where we inflict upon ourselves poor quality and insecure housing stock, and that has a negative effect on people's lives and society as a whole. People attribute many responsibilities to government, but I would hope that enabling people to improve their quality of life is high on the list.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh, I see you are playing the "you don't understand card" - again.

Problem is I do understand. Which is why i ask you to run the same calculation on 2008-13 data.

See if your bias will let you backup the data with the same gusto you are backing this argument up with.

We all know things have gone slightly backwards over that period £1 is one £1.07 in earnings and RPI has increased £1.16, but that doesn't alter anything I've posted she is still better of than she would have been if earnings had not increased more than RPI over the last 30 years.

House prices were higher at beginning of 2008 than end of 2013.

System

ukcarper wrote: »

she is still better of than she would have been if earnings had not increased more than earnings over the last 30 years.

.

Now who's not making sense - "better of" ..."if earnings had not increased more than earnings" ?