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

cells

michaels wrote: »

in fact it is almost that amount spent on housing can expand to take up all income beyond 'essentials'.

That would indicate a server shortage of homes. eg people spending everything they can spare to get limited housing and it may be true in London and some places

However in that list above 9 areas have a full time income between £471-479 per week (eg virtually the same) yet the cheapest area is 2.01 x income and the most expensive area 6.75 x income.

One possible conclusion is that Trafford at 6.75 x income has a shortgage of homes while Co.Durham at 2.01 x income has an excess of homes (wages in Trafford are just £1pw higher but house prices are three times higher)

If anything when we also look at London with 10-15-20-25-30x income prices the data points to higher priced areas having more employed people per property. So Trafford at 2x income might only have 1 employed person per home while Hackney at closer to 20x income might have closer to 3.5 employed persons per home. When you look at that plus wages maybe it explains how there can be a huge differential in prices

cells

with 805,000 full time employee jobs and 100,000 part time in just the city of London and Westminster and only about 100,000 homes in those two areas that leaves ~ 800,000 people travailing in and out daily from those two places alone

Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Islington all also inner London are other areas where there are more jobs than homes.

All leading to a mass migration of people into and out of central London daily

cells

With the average inner London wage at £38,900 (£2,462pm after tax) and with 4 wage earners per property spending 1/3rd of post tax income on housing would allow rents to go upto almost £3,300 per month for 3/4 bed properties.

Still some headroom then...

lisyloo

Is 4 wage earners realistic?
I live in central London and I can't think of any colleagues or neighbours who have 4 wage earners per household and that includes colleagues that rent out a room.
We would not want to share in late 40s and married.

chucknorris

lisyloo wrote: »

Is 4 wage earners realistic?
I live in central London and I can't think of any colleagues or neighbours who have 4 wage earners per household and that includes colleagues that rent out a room.
We would not want to share in late 40s and married.

I don't think that is ideal, but somethings gotta change (I was going to type something has to change, but I'm an ex Stranglers fan, I know its 'better change'). I must admit it does sound awful, but probably in medium term just to get on the ladder it is preferable renting. But what I would like to see is a mortgage product geared towards a single/couple renting with a 'rent a room' lodger (where the lodgers rent was included in the affordability calculations), I could see that working.

Edit: Right, must go to Youtube now to listen to 'Something better change'.

Graham_Devon

Two couples buying a place together is nearly always a disaster and anyone worth their salt would advise against it.

May sound good to start with, but what happens 2 years down the line when any one of those 4 people get a new job and need to move? BOTH couples have to sell up or the remaining couple need to buy the other couple out (which, considering the reasons they bought together in the first place invariably won't work).

4 individual single people is even worse. Only takes one to commit to a relationship and bang, all 4 individuals face losing their homes.

Stupid ideas and will never take off.

There are other options though for this sort of stuff, where you buy with a company in the background so that one of the couples can leave and get replaced with another. Very rare though as it simply adds to the costs which kind of nullifies the whole point.

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

Is 4 wage earners realistic?
I live in central London and I can't think of any colleagues or neighbours who have 4 wage earners per household and that includes colleagues that rent out a room.
We would not want to share in late 40s and married.

My rentals in inner London the min is 3 wage earners (or 3 student loans) and more typical is 4 wage earners but I only have 3/4 bed properties.

They tend to be young 20-35 friends or co-workers. Maybe that is how it is now in inner London the sharers are outbidding the owners and the single/couple who want/need to rent (at least for the 3-4 bed properties)

This makes some logistical sense. Better for people to be closer to work (time/money) thus a group of 4 young sharers within walking distance to the city is better than one couple where one works and the other takes care of the baby.

As time goes on and London gets more crowded and if a lot of jobs stay concentrated in the City/Westminster/Tower-Hamlets (looks likely as that is where the office towers are going up) then we might see renters that are willing to share offer a higher portion of their wages as rent outbidding lower density households who will have to live further out and commute

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Two couples buying a place together is nearly always a disaster and anyone worth their salt would advise against it.

May sound good to start with, but what happens 2 years down the line when any one of those 4 people get a new job and need to move? BOTH couples have to sell up or the remaining couple need to buy the other couple out (which, considering the reasons they bought together in the first place invariably won't work).

4 individual single people is even worse. Only takes one to commit to a relationship and bang, all 4 individuals face losing their homes.

Stupid ideas and will never take off.

There are other options though for this sort of stuff, where you buy with a company in the background so that one of the couples can leave and get replaced with another. Very rare though as it simply adds to the costs which kind of nullifies the whole point.

Exactly and hence these people will opt to rent.

The conclusion would be that inner London is becoming (or has largely already become) the area of renters and sharers. Even if prices went down that would be the case. Even if mortgages got easier to obtain it would be the case

The result is that in places like Hackney or Islington 80% of people rent only 20% own.


The only way to push up ownership in inner London would be to build so many new homes in inner London that all those people commuting from outer London to inner/central London or even from further afield can buy in inner London. So instead of building 50,000 homes all over London (London plan) and some in the commuter towns they should build 100,000 a year in just inner London and specifically very close to the city of London/westminster/Tower-Hamlets

That is not going to happen although probably a great idea (a million people could walk to work rather than use the tubes)

cells

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't think that is ideal, but somethings gotta change (I was going to type something has to change, but I'm an ex Stranglers fan, I know its 'better change'). I must admit it does sound awful, but probably in medium term just to get on the ladder it is preferable renting. But what I would like to see is a mortgage product geared towards a single/couple renting with a 'rent a room' lodger (where the lodgers rent was included in the affordability calculations), I could see that working.

Edit: Right, must go to Youtube now to listen to 'Something better change'.

In a city growing faster than its housing and transport infrastructure there is no choice but to live more dense and for more working people to live closer to jobs. This is what has happened since 2000

Either the population needs to stop growing so fast or home building in inner London really needs to boom or transport needs to become cheaper&quicker or the social stock needs to be sold/rented in a way that the then x-social homes have more workers in them. The alternative is more of the same higher rents and higher prices relative to incomes especially for inner London.

I think its going to be more of the same I dont think we are going to see enough building or enough social sales to offset what will be a continuing boom in Londons population due to migration foreign and domestic

kinger101

missbiggles1 wrote: »

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.

If you truly think it's worth living in Bridlington and commuting to York, you're bonkers, and have no idea of what it costs to fuel and maintain a car doing 400 miles every week.

Many of the people who do work in York commute because they can't afford the property there. But it's more likely they'd commute from Selby or Leeds, although it's still 45 mins - 1 hour each way.

But if you're talking about rental prices, rather then spending a good part of your week on the road, it would be more cost and time effective to live in York and work a few shifts a pub.

In terms of property prices, Selby is probably the only place in North Yorkshire where properties could be described as affordable (and that's not in a nice part of the town). Most of East Yorkshire within 30 minutes of York is also expensive. As are most places between Leeds and York.