Majority of houses more affordable than in 1997

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

Ohhh, I see. :undecided

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

Well as sad as that is, it most certainly explains the spectacular dance you have choreographed on this thread.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well as sad as that is, it most certainly explains the spectacular dance you have choreographed on this thread.

It explains why when you say we agree on something that I want the terms of reference of that agreement clearly defined.

There's no choreography. You had a problem with the report based on the 'huge aspect' of couples with kids having more money left over than couples with no kids. Once that huge aspect had been shown to be non-existent (you'd not quite grasped what the data was saying) you still seemed to have a huge problem with the report.

After that we just played a nice game of forumonics commencing as soon as you'd been shown to be completely wrong by using the politicians version of agreement which I hate i.e. 'ah ha! so you agree with me therefore [insert thing agreed on twisted to imply a different context]'

The report doesn't seem to reflect my own individual experience and I don't know why that's so very significant or why you think I've been particularly honest by saying so.

MARTYM8`

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

How about we test it.

Line up ten people who bought their houses in London in 1997 when the average house price there was around £100,000 and ask them if they could afford to buy the same place now when average prices are over £500,000?! And when I say afford - that means earning enough to have saved a £100k deposit and get a £400k mortgage. Given the average wage in London is £35k and the median only £25k - it would be interesting to ask them.

Yes - houses really are more affordable now than they were in 1997.:D

wotsthat

MARTYM8` wrote: »

How about we test it.

Line up ten people who bought their houses in London in 1997 when the average house price there was around £100,000 and ask them if they could afford to buy the same place now when average prices are over £500,000?! And when I say afford - that means earning enough to have saved a £100k deposit and get a £400k mortgage. Given the average wage in London is £35k and the median only £25k - it would be interesting to ask them.

Yes - houses really are more affordable now than they were in 1997.:D

A better way to argue it would be to a) analyse the data and find errors which make the conclusions invalid or b) pick apart the methodology and show the conclusion whilst valid isn't a true reflection of what constitutes a reasonable definition of ability to buy.

Asking 10 London buyers from 1997 if they could afford the same place now might deliver an answer you approve of but couldn't be considered a test of the report.

MARTYM8`

wotsthat wrote: »

A better way to argue it would be to a) analyse the data and find errors which make the conclusions invalid or b) pick apart the methodology and show the conclusion whilst valid isn't a true reflection of what constitutes a reasonable definition of ability to buy.

Asking 10 London buyers from 1997 if they could afford the same place now might deliver an answer you approve of but couldn't be considered a test of the report.

Who is this study aimed at?

Its commissioned by an estate agent which only serves the London market and prime areas of the Home counties and has been printed in a paper which has the vast majority of its readership in London and the south/south east - areas which even their study admits are less affordable than in 1997.

Its a bit like the average house prices have gone up 2% in the last month story we see endlessly - which again is meaningless as it depends where you live.

In the end what is the point - its clearly not valid in London or the south east as the report shows. So who are Hamptons trying to pinpoint - given that's their market not south Yorkshire or Durham.

"However, the national picture is polarised as affordability has continued to improve in the North East, North West, Yorkshire & Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands and Wales from 1997 to 2015 but deteriorated in London, the East, the South East and the South West."

cells

MARTYM8` wrote: »

How about we test it.

Line up ten people who bought their houses in London in 1997 when the average house price there was around £100,000 and ask them if they could afford to buy the same place now when average prices are over £500,000?! And when I say afford - that means earning enough to have saved a £100k deposit and get a £400k mortgage. Given the average wage in London is £35k and the median only £25k - it would be interesting to ask them.

Yes - houses really are more affordable now than they were in 1997.:D

London is definitely less affordable than 20 years ago but most the rest of the country didn't see as much hpi

wotsthat

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Who is this study aimed at?

Its commissioned by an estate agent which only serves the London market and prime areas of the Home counties and has been printed in a paper which has the vast majority of its readership in London and the south/south east - areas which even their study admits are less affordable than in 1997.

Its a bit like the average house prices have gone up 2% in the last month story we see endlessly - which again is meaningless as it depends where you live.

In the end what is the point - its clearly not valid in London or the south east as the report shows. So who are Hamptons trying to pinpoint - given that's their market not south Yorkshire or Durham.

"However, the national picture is polarised as affordability has continued to improve in the North East, North West, Yorkshire & Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands and Wales from 1997 to 2015 but deteriorated in London, the East, the South East and the South West."

You're reading too much into it.

It's part of a series of releases and would have been released regardless of whether ability to buy had improved or not. The last release for example stated ability to buy had fallen in 2014 so, In that instance I assume the report, methodology and findings can be considered gospel?

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Define "hasn't gone down well" as you appear to be making things up?

The thread is here...

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/205883-crisis-what-crisis-majority-of-houses-more-affordable-than-in-1997/

....Can't see anyone having even a minor meltdown.

Minor meltdown...take a look in the mirror.