The UK housing market is an example of junkie style economics

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All workers is the reality though carper.

And this is where data and how to view it starts going wrong.

You will view only the very best data and ignore the rest. What's the point in that though? What's the point in only looking at couples who both work full time? You are excluding huge chunks of the nation and then suggesting there isn't a housing problem at all.

In South Wales for example, there are HUGE numbers of part time workers. If you only look at full time data, you ignore huge swathes of the population there.

And this is why all this talk of "house prices are affordable" goes wrong. You make the point that cells pointed out the earnings, but he also pointed out that if a couple work 104 hours a week between them they can afford a terrace. That's pretty extreme, but it allows him to continue the point that everything is affordable and life is a continual box of lovely chocolates.

The majority of couples, with a child or two for example will not both work full time. The average couple has one full time worker and one part time worker. So what's the point in constantly assuming that kids don't exist or that it's professional couples with kids who are going for the terraces?

It makes a point on paper, but that's it. Go outside and reality hits you.

You may aswell say to a local area that is under 4 feet of flood water "well, you don't have a problem, your average rain fall for December is only 2 feet across the entire month". They would quite rightly tell you where to go.

Averages on paper tell you one thing. The reality on the ground tells you something completely different. The reality though, is what matters.

and the reality is that ONE MEDIAN full time wage is sufficient in the majority (>50%) of England.

here is the info again, one person working the median full time job (37.5hours) vs local terrace house prices

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

You're beginning to sound like a stuck record.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1076926/2015_02_26_Affordability_for_first_time_buyers_-_FINAL.pdf

You might want to think about the bit on page 8 regarding the deposit. And the bit on page 12 about declining home ownership.

I've already explained why your 70 % wasn't 70 %. You don't clearly understand averages. Half the properties are obviously above the average. These are not dispersed randomly. They often almost include entire counties.

You have to think about where the population is distributed as well. They are not spread evenly in the country. There are 8.6 million people in London and 53 million in England. So that's 16% of English people who don't live in an affordable area already. And before you counter you meant by land area, you have to accept it's people, and not sheep, cows and cabbages that are buying properties.

70% of the properties in England are affordable or cheap vs local full time wages so it does take into account the differing population of the towns and regions

ukcarper

kinger101 wrote: »

So 46% are unemployed, or underemployed. That's high. The really cheap houses are often in regions it's difficult to get work. Cells' statistics covering entire countries or several counties and not always going to be particularly useful in illustrating what life is like on a smaller scale. A mean or median has one very narrow function. I doesn't provide any information on variance, distribution or sub-populations within the dataset.

No 2.6% are unemployed 23% part time 20% economically inactive.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You've missed the point again even though I explicitly laid it out for you.

I'll try again.

It's not about what I think.

If half the population of Powys are working part time (random made up figure) then there is no point suggesting there isn't a problem in Powys, because if you are working full time you can (just about) afford a terrace (though it's doubtful you'd get a mortgage for 4.5x income if you have any other expenses such as a car loan or kids).

You've ignored the very fact that you've excluded half the population. They all need somewhere to live. If they can't find full time work they have to do whatever they can. You've ignored the fact they need a deposit. You've ignored the fact they need to be debt free at these income levels. You've ignored local working economies. You've ignored the fact that in many areas, there won't be all that many terraces (skewing your figures wildly), or that the area is flooded with terraces but people need 3 bed homes. You've ignored EVERYTHING but 2 paper figures and made a massive conclusion out of that.

ALL workers looks at the wage of all workers, obviously. You could look at full time data alone and think "ahhh, full time workers in Powys are on 21.5k, grand". But if you ignore the fact that only 7% are full time workers due to the local economy and 93% are part time (random made up figures before you correct me and ignore the point) you are only allowing yourself to see half the picture. At that point, when it's being pointed out to you and you still continue to do it, I'd say more fool you.

Why can you not ask yourself....if housing is so affordable in places like Powys, why does it have one of the lowest rates of owner occupation in the country!?

you would argue that a £50k home is too expensive for some people and you would be correct that does not mean £50k for a house is not cheap. For the people that have no jobs there is the social housing

70% of working population of Powys is employed full time 30% part time which is very close to the national average

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And now were just about getting there.

Have you been to Powys?

How many people walking around these little towns in Powys, who currently don't have a house, do you think are walking around with 15k savings in the bank?

How many of those actually require an ex mining 2 bed house in the middle of the valleys? How many actually need 3 beds due to kids? Loads of people can afford a house that's far too small or inadequate for them. Your paper statistic would say "look, they can afford it". Reality would say "great, and whats the point in them buying that"? I suppose you'd say to a couple with 4 kids "you don't have a problem, on your wages you can afford to buy property - have a look at this studio flat"?

Were getting there though. Hopefully you are now finally opening your eyes as to why paper figures plucked from statistics hardly ever match the reality on the ground.

you are not getting anywhere, the most upto data ons data on your chosen sob story

POWYS


21k full time employed
Median income for a full time employed man there £24,835
Median income for a full time employed woman there £19,472

21 of the 30 thousand people employed are full time or 70% are full time employed

Compared to say East England where the figure is ..... 70%
Compared to say the South east where the figure is ....72%

Contrary to your insistence even Powys seems to have the same ratio of full time to part time jobs

Powys average Terrace price £93,241
Powys average full time male wage £24,835
Price to full time male wage 3.75x
Not the cheapest place but quite affordable at 3.75x
And a place where 70% are employed full time...a figure the same as the east of england and only marginally less than the SE


I know this is hard for you to accept, you've probably spent years telling yourself otherwise. But a good portion of England is affordable and arguably even cheap. Come to London with 13 x wages and you will see how cheap and affordable £93,241 and 3.75x Powys is

Generali

I'm not sure how happy the good people of Powys are going to be to be moved to England! Apart from that you make good points cells.

cells

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure how happy the good people of Powys are going to be to be moved to England! Apart from that you make good points cells.

Graham is not wrong in his points I accept that a lot of people probably find it difficult or impossible to save a 10% deposit and that a lot of people are employed in jobs that pay poorly or employed in part time work whereas they want full time work but those are generally different issues.

Also Powys would be on the more expensive end of that list above, at 4.1 x full time wage (not full time men full time everyone) it is affordable but not cheap like say Liverpool at 2.5 x. Powys would need to see a 40% crash in prices to be as cheap as Liverpool. So Powys affordable liverpool down right cheap and undervalued

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

70% of the properties in England are affordable or cheap vs local full time wages so it does take into account the differing population of the towns and regions

To be fare I don't think that is entily accurate I would say in 70% of England property is affordable as the spread of properties is not even and more are in the unaffordable areas.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

To be fare I don't think that is entily accurate I would say in 70% of England property is affordable as the spread of properties is not even and more are in the unaffordable areas.

it took the number of homes/people into account. I didnt say 7 out of 10 regions = 70%. I said x regions with y people are under Z income

I might do a full list as someone in the ONS emailed me a breakdown of local wages for the whole country by town. If I could download the land registry data rather than look up areas one by one it would be fairly quick.

I will see when I have time and do a new post

Mistermeaner

Good works cells.

Don't want to sound all 'look at me' but I'd be really interested to see stats for my town. I think I earn a pretty good wage and have a very comfortable earnings to debt ratio having made a conscious decision to stay in my starter home regardless of wage rises, but all around me I see very expensive houses worth 3, 4, 5 times what mine is worth being purchased by people of my age and I'm wondering how on earth they afford it.... either they are really stretched,mum and dad gave helped considerably they earn far more than I think but as far as I know there aren't that many well paying jobs round here.

I certainly don't feel well off despite having a debt to earnings ratio of about 60% (ie my total debt is less than my annual salary, so my multiple is approx 0.6). The folks buying up the expensive properties must be piling on the debt. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night