Majority of houses more affordable than in 1997

cells

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You need to nip that one in the bud, Hamish.

When Mrs LM was earning [a fraction of my income] I ensured that all hers went on the groceries etc., less a small allowance. Then eventually she stopped working, but now brings in state pension plus a small FS one. She sends just over 50% of that to me, using the rest for her own modest needs and to pay for household things.

She does, in fact, have significant funds in her own name [tax reasons, you know]. If only she knew passwords and things, she would be able to access some of it. But she doesn't, so it's safe.

She 'wants' for nothing, and would not have a clue how to manage such a complex set of funds, so I take that weight off her, being the kind loving husband I am.

It's probably different up there with kilts and things, but down this neck of the woods, I definitely wear the trousers [although Mrs LM tells me which ones to wear.]

You should work towards a similar strategy.

what if mr dementia pays you a visit?

cells

In a lot of the country house prices are not much above wages vs 20 years ago. With finance a lot cheaper now, it would mean the initial cost of a home is now cheaper

However the buyers of old did not buy with a 25 year fix. They benefited from remortgaging onto cheaper and cheaper rates.

Also I wonder how if at all the burden of things like stamp duty solicitors fees mortgage fees etc have changed.

vivatifosi

wotsthat wrote: »

"".................

And I wondered for a moment why I don't visit that website.

hpifever

The comments on that story are great. I wonder who that bell end prester john is?

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yet seemingly you felt the need to create a new username, with the sole intention of making me look silly by thanking my post as complete nonsense.

Cus I look incredibly silly when you are going to such lengths.

Graham dismayed by the creation of a thanking sockie.
Oh the irony. :rotfl:

Graham_Devon

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer, and look at the results.

Apparently if you are part of a couple with children where one works full time and one works part time you have more money left over than a couple with no kids who both work full time..... (what?!)

Again, this must be something to do with the "those likely to buy a house" reference. What are they doing here exactly to get this "subset" of people?

The whole thing simply doesn't stack up.

If you can shed some light on why those working less hours, WITH children have more money left over than those couples both working full time with no children...... please, feel free. That is precisely what it says on page 2 here: http://www.hamptons.co.uk/media/444160/a2b-q12015-appendix.pdf

Can anyone explain this? As it would appear to be a huge aspect of the results.

The only real way a couple with kids working full time and part time can have more money left over than a full time working couple with no kids is via selection. They refer to this selection as "likely to buy". For example, are they looking at a family with children only with an income > X?

All of the affordability is then based on that selection. So what defines someone who is "likely to buy"? As it's an ability to buy index making a statement for the country, these definitions are kind of important to the findings.

ukcarper

mystic_trev wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11779093/Affordable-homes-crisis-What-affordable-homes-crisis.html

Needless to say, this hasn't gone down well on another 'certain' website!

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can anyone explain this? As it would appear to be a huge aspect of the results.

The only real way a couple with kids working full time and part time can have more money left over than a full time working couple with no kids is via selection. They refer to this selection as "likely to buy". For example, are they looking at a family with children only with an income > X?

All of the affordability is then based on that selection. So what defines someone who is "likely to buy"? As it's an ability to buy index making a statement for the country, these definitions are kind of important to the findings.

Yea it's not cash they have left over but difference compared to 1997.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can anyone explain this? As it would appear to be a huge aspect of the results.

The only real way a couple with kids working full time and part time can have more money left over than a full time working couple with no kids is via selection. They refer to this selection as "likely to buy". For example, are they looking at a family with children only with an income > X?

All of the affordability is then based on that selection. So what defines someone who is "likely to buy"? As it's an ability to buy index making a statement for the country, these definitions are kind of important to the findings.

You've missed the time variable. As explained it's not a snapshot where these two groups are compared against each other today but compared against the same group from 1997.

Both groups, according to this methodology, are more able to buy than they were in 1997. However, the two groups are different because working couples with kids have improved their ability to buy since 1997 faster than working couples with no kids.

A factor must be that changes in government policy have favoured couples with children over couples without. Thinking back to 1997 there was no flexible working legislation, no help with childcare costs, no child tax credits etc. This is assumption because I've not checked how/ if it's explained in the report.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You've missed the time variable. As explained it's not a snapshot where these two groups are compared against each other today but compared against the same group from 1997.

Both groups, according to this methodology, are more able to buy than they were in 1997. However, the two groups are different because working couples with kids have improved their ability to buy since 1997 faster than working couples with no kids.

A factor must be that changes in government policy have favoured couples with children over couples without. Thinking back to 1997 there was no flexible working legislation, no help with childcare costs, no child tax credits etc. This is assumption because I've not checked how/ if it's explained in the report.

So are we saying it is genuinely easier for a couple with children to buy a house today than it was in 1997? And we don't need to question this report?

I realise this report backs up your own feelings regarding affordability. However, can you honestly relate to this report and suggest it's more affordable to buy today than it was in 1997?

For reference, average house price:
Q1 1997 - £68,058
Q1 2015 - £179,271

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So are we saying it is genuinely easier for a couple with children to buy a house today than it was in 1997? And we don't need to question this report?

I realise this report backs up your own feelings regarding affordability. However, can you honestly relate to this report and suggest it's more affordable to buy today than it was in 1997?

For reference, average house price:
Q1 1997 - £68,058
Q1 2015 - £179,271

I purchased around 1997 and very glad I did - based on my extensive anecdotal data set of one it seems unlikely my former self would be any better able to buy in 2015 or find the process more affordable so I'm not hanging my hat on the findings of this report.

However, according to this report ability to buy has improved since 1997 and although slightly dubious I'm not dismissing it out of hand. Other reports are available saying the opposite if you prefer. I'm not saying you can't question it; that's up to you but your question related to a misunderstanding of what the data meant rather than the methodology.

What's interesting about reports like this is they measure other factors which impact on ability to buy and affordability. Obviously not for the statistically challenged because they can't get past £179,271 > £68,058 therefore it can't be true that ability to buy has improved at the same time.