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

kinger101

cells wrote: »

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!

Why have you move the goal posts from minimum wage to median wage? Why don't you accept that the more expensive parts of these regions are physical locations, and therefore subtract from the 70%? Think of it like sandwiches. Bob is a vegatarian. There are three sandwiches on the table. One egg, one cheese, one bacon. He can't eat 100% of the sandwiches, only 67%. Even though they're on the same table. York is that bacon sandwich. The vegetarian = minimum wage.

Have a play with these

http://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2015/sep/02/unaffordable-country-where-can-you-afford-to-buy-a-house

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23234033

cells

Amazing ONS site showing average earnings for all of the UK broken down to LA so you can go even deeper than regions!

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/interactive-how-do-earnings-vary-across-the-country/

Using the land registry to compare you can get local terrace prices vs full time incomes.

So just some random areas vs full time wages multiple

eg Rotherham £479pw average full time wage £56,097 average terrace house = 2.25 x annual full time average wage

Redcar and Cleveland 2.25x
Manchester 2.30x
Liverpool 2.53x
Bradford 2.79x
Wakefield 2.94x
Nottingham 3.04x
Kirklees 3.24x
Birmingham 3.54x
Sheffied 3.78x
Coventry 4.04x
Stockport 4.54x
Newcastle upon tyne 4.68x


Kensington & Chelsea 101.13x
Islington 30.45x
Hackney 25.11x
Waltham forest 14.93x

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

Why have you move the goal posts from minimum wage to median wage? Why don't you accept that the more expensive parts of these regions are physical locations, and therefore subtract from the 70%? Think of it like sandwiches. Bob is a vegatarian. There are three sandwiches on the table. One egg, one cheese, one bacon. He can't eat 100% of the sandwiches, only 67%. Even though they're on the same table. York is that bacon sandwich. The vegetarian = minimum wage.

Have a play with these

http://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2015/sep/02/unaffordable-country-where-can-you-afford-to-buy-a-house

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23234033

bob on min wage may not be a vegetarian but he may have to pick the egg sandwich at £1.50 instead of the bacon Sandwich at £3.00

and recall these are for the average terrace meaning about half of terrace homes are cheaper

cells

As can be seen a lot of places with average terrace prices < 4x local full time income.

By no means an exhaustive list I just found about 38 before I got bored. About 12.6m people live in those < 4x local income towns listed below or nearly 24% of the UK. Once again not an exhaustive list!

C_Mababejive

A large proportion of the Victorian terraced stock needs running over with a bulldozer as they are past,at or approaching their end of life. Who wants to pump money into a damp money pit?

Generali

C_Mababejive wrote: »

A large proportion of the Victorian terraced stock needs running over with a bulldozer as they are past,at or approaching their end of life. Who wants to pump money into a damp money pit?

What proportion is a large proportion? I would imagine that the condition of the property is reflected in the price.

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

Interesting, thanks Cells.

Of course forumnomics dictate that everyone is either a bonus-swilling, tax-dodging investment banker or scraping by on the minimum wage and eating from food banks because evil Tories..

People on minimum wage have loads of debt, commute 40 miles by car and they're just about to buy a terrace when everyone knows they need knocking down.

No wonder they eat at food banks.

missbiggles1

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".

But nobody's forcing you to buy a house. If it's important to you then you'll make the sacrifices in time and money, if not you rent in York.

However, from what I can see on Rightmove, the cheapest rental properties in York are about £80pw more than in Bridlington so, even renting and paying commuting costs you'll be about £70 better off doing the commute and far more so if you're a couple.

You're also forgetting that a single person, over 25, on that salary would receive nearly £1,000 pa (net) in working tax credit.

missbiggles1

wotsthat wrote: »

People on minimum wage have loads of debt, commute 40 miles by car and they're just about to buy a terrace when everyone knows they need knocking down.

No wonder they eat at food banks.

There are plenty of people on NMW who not only have no debts but manage to save. (That's not to say that it shouldn't be higher.)

Why you should think terrace houses need knocking down defeats me - even more that you think "everybody knows" this!

michaels

C_Mababejive wrote: »

A large proportion of the Victorian terraced stock needs running over with a bulldozer as they are past,at or approaching their end of life. Who wants to pump money into a damp money pit?

I guess they were built differently here in the SE (Eastern Region) where it is easy to spend 500k on the smallest 2 up 2 down Victorian Terrace.