In 70% of England you can buy the average terrace on minimium wage

Graham_Devon

missbiggles1 wrote: »

What's wrong with an hour or so's drive to work?

(Bloody northerners!;))

Nothing is wrong with it in terms of time taken.

The point is rather than you are spending quite a bit of cash to drive those 80 miles. It's around £200-250 in fuel alone each month. That's a big chunk gone out of your £1,100 in wages (full time minimum wage which is what is being discussed).

Not to mention all the other associated costs of running a car for 20,000 miles a year.

Kind of proves the points being raised in this thread though. You can't just earn minimum wage and think "oh, I'll buy a house now". Not when 25% of your wages each month have gone on fuel alone.

Were looking at realities now. Not just paper figures which says "you earn this - a house costs this= you can afford it".

Graham_Devon

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Well, I know I didn't learn to drive and get a car until I was 50 but I rather thought I was the exception in that regard.;)

There also seems to be a bus service that gets you into York before 0900. http://getdown.org.uk/bus/bus/46.shtml

Quick search on the East Yorkshire bus service website say's that's £11 per day.

So just £220-275 per month in bus fares then.

kinger101

cells wrote: »

if everyone should be able to afford a house in york should the rest or Y&H be abandoned? its worse than that should a lot of york be abandoned too if everyone should be able to afford the average terrace in york half the terraces are at a lower price than the average.

The data is availilbe on the land registry

http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/hpi/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England


And I don't recall saying the average person in Y&H can afford the average terrace in York on minimum wage. I said the average couple in Y&H working full time can afford the average terrace in Y&H

With the average terrace at £78k in Y&H a couple on full time min wage can comfortably afford the £70k mortgage as its ~2.5x joint income

I suppose you actually think this couple has 2.4 children as well. A person will buy a specific house in a specific location. Not an average one based in four counties. In some areas I'm sure people could afford multiple homes on the minimum wage. In some they can afford none. The 70% figure is therefore not correct.

My comment about York was merely an example of where your sweeping generalization fails. York might only be a small part of Yorkshire, but we can already exclude these from your 70%. I'm sure there are other examples in other regions too.

Commuting long distances isn't always practical, particularly if your home and work place are not on a train line. When applying for mortgages, the banks ask you about travel costs, and £200 spent on travel is £200 you don't have for repayments.

Most people's jobs means they have geographic restrictions on where they live. More so if it's a couple where both partners work in different towns/cities. They'll probably live somewhere in between. Add children into the equation, and there's schools to think about too.

kinger101

missbiggles1 wrote: »

What's wrong with an hour or so's drive to work?

(Bloody northerners!;))

If spending 3 hours travelling to and from work each day is such a good idea, why don't Londoners move to Doncaster or Nottingham. No longer will they have to house share well into their 40s. There are lots of nice areas near the station in Nottingham. Like the Meadows. Sounds rather tranquil doesn't it. Nice three bedroom here for £85K

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-53673728.html

Thrugelmir

cells wrote: »

My logic says that the following areas are very affordable
Average terrace x median gross annual earnings for the region

NE 2.7x
NW 2.7x
Y&H 3.1x
EM 3.6x
WM 3.7x

How low do the earning multiples need to go for it to be affordable in your books? less than 2x? less than 1x?

Ok it's affordable on the basis you present. I can only repeat that's not how mortgage lenders approach the matter.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nothing is wrong with it in terms of time taken.

The point is rather than you are spending quite a bit of cash to drive those 80 miles. It's around £200-250 in fuel alone each month. That's a big chunk gone out of your £1,100 in wages (full time minimum wage which is what is being discussed).

Not to mention all the other associated costs of running a car for 20,000 miles a year.

Kind of proves the points being raised in this thread though. You can't just earn minimum wage and think "oh, I'll buy a house now". Not when 25% of your wages each month have gone on fuel alone.

Were looking at realities now. Not just paper figures which says "you earn this - a house costs this= you can afford it".

why would you travel to work 40 miles away if you only had a min wage paid job. why not take up work 4 miles away?

I know a couple on min wage and they bought their 3 bed terrace house in the west Midlands this year for £85k and also got married. Both in their 20s one walks to work and the other takes a bus

also I know it can be hard to save up a deposit when you are lowly paid hence why I also quoted the terrace price vs annual earnings for the regions

NE 2.7x
NW 2.7x
Y&H 3.1x
EM 3.6x
WM 3.7x
SW 5.9x
East 6.3x
SE 7.0x
Lond 13.0x

are some of you really trying to argue that the NE NW and Y&H are not affordable when prices are 2.7-3.1 x income and where prices are lower now than they were ten years ago?

I suppose some people would argue homes are overpriced even if the average terrace was 2x income

cells

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Ok it's affordable on the basis you present. I can only repeat that's not how mortgage lenders approach the matter.

please add you knowledge to the debate

how much would a couple both earning say £7,20 an hour and working 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year be offered as a loan if they are in a band A property and one drives but the other does not and no kids at this stage?

Also min wage is the very bottom of the earning scale. Most people earn more than that. Half the people in the NE earn more than £24,876 which is the median gross annual earnings for the NE

kinger101

cells wrote: »

why would you travel to work 40 miles away if you only had a min wage paid job. why not take up work 4 miles away?

I know a couple on min wage and they bought their 3 bed terrace house in the west Midlands this year for £85k and also got married. Both in their 20s one walks to work and the other takes a bus

also I know it can be hard to save up a deposit when you are lowly paid hence why I also quoted the terrace price vs annual earnings for the regions

NE 2.7x
NW 2.7x
Y&H 3.1x
EM 3.6x
WM 3.7x
SW 5.9x
East 6.3x
SE 7.0x
Lond 13.0x

are some of you really trying to argue that the NE NW and Y&H are not affordable when prices are 2.7-3.1 x income and where prices are lower now than they were ten years ago?

I suppose some people would argue homes are overpriced even if the average terrace was 2x income

Nobody is disputing the (now outdated) average prices for large geographical regions. They're just disputing your conclusions on what this means.

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

I suppose you actually think this couple has 2.4 children as well. A person will buy a specific house in a specific location. Not an average one based in four counties. In some areas I'm sure people could afford multiple homes on the minimum wage. In some they can afford none. The 70% figure is therefore not correct.

My comment about York was merely an example of where your sweeping generalization fails. York might only be a small part of Yorkshire, but we can already exclude these from your 70%. I'm sure there are other examples in other regions too.

Commuting long distances isn't always practical, particularly if your home and work place are not on a train line. When applying for mortgages, the banks ask you about travel costs, and £200 spent on travel is £200 you don't have for repayments.

Most people's jobs means they have geographic restrictions on where they live. More so if it's a couple where both partners work in different towns/cities. They'll probably live somewhere in between. Add children into the equation, and there's schools to think about too.

on the other side of the coin there will be cheap towns in the SW SE and East where the average is a good deal lower than the regional average just as york is a good deal higher than the Y&H average

my point was that homes in 70% of the nation look affordable or cheap. I tried to quantify that by showing how two full time workers paid min wage can buy in 70% of the country.

I think you are taking a bad view of things with trying to point out that some people in some situations earning the min wage in some local areas of a region might not be able to afford

here is what homes cost vs median wages for the regions

NE 2.7x
NW 2.7x
Y&H 3.1x
EM 3.6x
WM 3.7x

even the crazy folk at HPC seem to put the magic number at 3.5x income and five regions of england are near that or lower

also the median gross annual income is the median of all workers (afaik) which means it includes part time workers. If you look only at full time workers those multiples will be even lower!

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

Nobody is disputing the (now outdated) average prices for large geographical regions. They're just disputing your conclusions on what this means.

how are they outdated they are October 2015 land registry average prices for regions

my conclusion is that when an area region average terrace price is 2.7 - 3.7 x median incomes it is affordable maybe even cheap

NE 2.7x
NW 2.7x
Y&H 3.1x
EM 3.6x
WM 3.7x