Corbynomics: A Dystopia

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

You don't think there is a reason why cheap areas are cheap then.

Don't change the subject I feel the cogs in your mind are fighting the cobwebs and trying to spin

What proportion of the UK housing stock is affordable? I've suggested about 75% please give an estimate. You must surely accept even if it isn't 75% its definitely over 50%?

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

No I'm still saying that in large parts of the country property is unaffordable to people on low wages. Just because parts of a region are affordable it doesn't mean that everywhere in that region is affordable.

If a region is affordable without investigating any further you can clearly conclude AT LEAST half that region is affordable.


This feel so d!jà vu have we done this exact same cobsmversion before this thread?

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Cars and transport exist people don't need to buy in place x if place x is an outlier and expensive in their region.

Either way. You must surely accept that if the region average price looks affordable at least 50% of that region must be very affordable? And more likely 90% with 10% or so as outliers.

On the other hand expensive regions will have affordable outliers on the downside.

No I don't accept that if you want me to you'll have to take the trouble of breaking the reactions down to local authorities.

Transport is expensive be it cars or public it cost over £5 a day to travel the 8 miles on my local bus £25 a week is a lot out of minimum wage to travel the 30 miles into London would cost over £4K a year.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

property is unaffordable to people on low wages..

Sure

What's more reasonable?

The the 2 million or so people on min wage get better paid work or accept they can't buy a whole property

Or that houses everywhere in the UK fall to about £35,000 so those 'on low wages' can buy too?

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

If a region is affordable without investigating any further you can clearly conclude AT LEAST half that region is affordable.


This feel so d!jà vu have we done this exact same cobsmversion before this thread?

If that's correct then over half the country is unaffordable.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

No I don't accept that if you want me to you'll have to take the trouble of breaking the reactions down to local authorities.

Transport is expensive be it cars or public it cost over £5 a day to travel the 8 miles on my local bus £25 a week is a lot out of minimum wage to travel the 30 miles into London would cost over £4K a year.

I have already broken it down to lots of towns and cities within the a UK I did a whole thread about it. I got bored after about 40 towns and cities. I tell toy what when I'm free next week I will try to do a more comprehensive version and maybe try to list 100 towns and cities within the UK

But in short believe me when you break it down its exactly as I say about 75% of the whole country (by housing stock) is very affordable.

Of course your and my definition of affordable seems to be different. My reasonable definition is that a home is affordable if its on par with social costs. Your definition seems to be that a house is only affordable if someone on £10k a year can buy it

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Sure

What's more reasonable?

The the 2 million or so people on min wage get better paid work or accept they can't buy a whole property

Or that houses everywhere in the UK fall to about £35,000 so those 'on low wages' can buy too?

You seem to think I'm arguing for prices to fall I'm just telling you how it is and yes people on minimum wage in expensive areas have to accept they can't buy.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

I have already broken it down to lots of towns and cities within the a UK I did a whole thread about it. I got bored after about 40 towns and cities. I tell toy what when I'm free next week I will try to do a more comprehensive version and maybe try to list 100 towns and cities within the UK

But in short believe me when you break it down its exactly as I say about 75% of the whole country (by housing stock) is very affordable.

Of course your and my definition of affordable seems to be different. My reasonable definition is that a home is affordable if its on par with social costs. Your definition seems to be that a house is only affordable if someone on £10k a year can buy it

I don't recall you breaking it down that far. Why do you think property is cheap in Stoke and other areas where prices are low.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

If that's correct then over half the country is unaffordable.

Its closer to 25%

And only if you define affordable as = similar cost to social rents.

I have to start with that definition as the convinced mob of hpc have no wriggle room when you show that buying is cheaper than social.

If we use more reasonable definition eg something like 30% of income as affordable etc then it goes above 75% of the country that is affordable.


Also bear in mind a certain % has to be inaffordable to income earners vecuase a certain % of the hoauong stock is reserved for capital not income buyers. Personally I would disregard that portion which I estimate at 10%. So of 75% of 90% is afdordable that jumps towards 83% affordability exludong the capital purchase stock

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't recall you breaking it down that far. Why do you think property is cheap in Stoke and other areas where prices are low.

I would ask it the other way around. Why is property expensive in London and to an extent expensive in the south east while everywhere else (most the nation) is affordable