Majority of houses more affordable than in 1997

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So are we saying it is genuinely easier for a couple with children to buy i 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

The UK is a big place

If you look at the data from a region to region basis you find that many of the regions are not much more expensive in real terms vs 15 years ago

Eg average price of west midlands now 120.8k average 15 years ago was 63.6k

An increase of exactly 90% or 4.36% a year

So in real terms prices are maybe about 20% more expensive but on the other habd finance is less than half the cost it was. So with a 25 year fixed mortgage it probably is cheaper today however using refinancing its unlikely to be cheaper today as the buyer 15 years agi benefitted from falling rayes whereas the buyer today probably wont to the same extent

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

And that bit of honesty right there says all we need to know about this report really.

Theres just something in the methology which suggests it's not quite right. If that's something we can all agree on, then there must be something going on somewhere!

Shame you felt the need to then insult in your final paragraph for seemingly no reason. The average price stuff was just highlighting the blindly obvious.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And that bit of honesty right there says all we need to know about this report really.

Really? A random bloke on the internet says he thinks his former self might might have found it easier in 1997 than 2015 and you're willing to dismiss the report based on that?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres just something in the methology which suggests it's not right. If that's something we can all agree on, then there must be something going on somewhere!

I haven't agreed there's 'something' in the methodology or there's something 'going on'.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I haven't agreed there's 'something' in the methodology or there's something 'going on'.

Good grief, you will make an argument out of everything. What is your issue?

You stated:

However, according to this report ability to buy has improved since 1997 and although slightly dubious I'm not dismissing it out of hand.

That's what I have been saying all along. Therefore, it seems, we agree, though you'll no doubt argue we don;t.

Aberdeenangarse

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.

The Following User Says Thank You to Graham_Devon For This Useful Post: Show me >>
IsaacHunt (Today)

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good grief, you will make an argument out of everything. What is your issue?

That's what I have been saying all along. Therefore, it seems, we agree, though you'll no doubt argue we don;t.

Noticing a report based on large data and me being dubious about the conclusion because I think my data set of one might be different doesn't mean it's wrong.

To admit as much would mean I dismiss reports because they're not based solely on my singular life experience, I simply don't like the conclusion or because of a funny feeling I have.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Noticing a report based on large data and me being dubious about the conclusion because I think my data set of one might be different doesn't mean it's wrong.

Well it's a good job no one has said it's wrong then.

Neither was I implying you were suggesting it's wrong.

I simply agreed with you that theres something not quite right with it. You suggested it was dubious. We therefore agreed on that aspect. I am sorry about that.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well it's a good job no one has said it's wrong then.

Neither was I implying you were suggesting it's wrong.

I simply agreed with you that theres something not quite right with it. You suggested it was dubious. We therefore agreed on that aspect. I am sorry about that.

I didn't agree there's something not quite right with it.

It doesn't tally with my life experience. I don't know why and am retaining a healthy scepticism rather assuming my life experience is typical or the report is not quite right/ wrong/ fishy etc.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I didn't agree there's something not quite right with it.

Oh ok. "slightly dubious" must mean something different up your way.

This really is pointless, so with respect, I'm just going to leave you to it and ignore all of this.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh ok. "slightly dubious" must mean something different up your way.

I'm distancing myself from being seen to agree with you in case it implies slightly dubious is overly associated with the more strict dictionary definition of doubting or not to be relied upon.

Think something along the lines of 'I wouldn't have quite expected that', 'I wonder how they worked that out', 'that's interesting' etc. if that's what you meant too then we agree.

It just makes me uncomfortable to agree with you - there you've got it out of me!