Relativity...

purch

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You don't need to be Einstein to see the big picture....

Please try to remember.....everything in isolation.....that is how this board views the World.

Mistermeaner

Is a meal out counted as a service or food?

zagfles

michaels wrote: »

Hamish you have got it all wrong again:
House price to income ratio should be fixed over all time at 3.5x median single earner.
Interest rates make no difference.
The proportion of income spent on other items such as food and clothing makes no difference.
Higher income earners do not have enough disposable income to pay a higher proportion of their income on housing

And, looking at your chart, there is clearly a bubble in services that will soon be corrected in almighty crash as restaurants and hair dressers come tumbling down because they are clearly taking up an unaffordable share of income.

As we become richer, it should be obvious that a lesser proportion of income would be spent on the basics of living and a greater proportion spent on leisure, non essentials etc.

Seems to be true for food, clothing, fuel light & power, but not for transport and definitely not for housing.

mwpt

A regional breakdown would be interesting. I suspect London would look quite different. Of course it all sums to zero as Generali says but that doesn't make it meaningless. Here are some graphs I'd like to see from 1970 - today, specifically for London:

Rents as % of income
Monthly mortgage payments as % of income
House prices as % of income

I suspect that we might find the mortgage payments tracks the rent payments roughly, whereas due to cheap credit, the house prices would be increasing massively.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

I'd rather be choosing to spend my money on a nice house and having a good time rather than having to spend it on food and fags.

But the point above is moot because in the days when food and fags were expensive, people could still afford a nice home.

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

A regional breakdown would be interesting. I suspect London would look quite different. Of course it all sums to zero as Generali says but that doesn't make it meaningless. Here are some graphs I'd like to see from 1970 - today, specifically for London:

Rents as % of income
Monthly mortgage payments as % of income
House prices as % of income

I suspect that we might find the mortgage payments tracks the rent payments roughly, whereas due to cheap credit, the house prices would be increasing massively.

Those data should be available from the ONS or at least calculable as broad averages.

I'm not sure what we learn from such wide sweeping data sets TBH.

CLAPTON

zagfles wrote: »

As we become richer, it should be obvious that a lesser proportion of income would be spent on the basics of living and a greater proportion spent on leisure, non essentials etc.

Seems to be true for food, clothing, fuel light & power, but not for transport and definitely not for housing.

it depends upon what you call 'essential's

whilst housing is an 'essential', wanting a 4/5 bed house with three bathrooms isn't essential - it is a non essential
similarly a 35k car is a non essential, even if transport is essential

the problem with housing in London and parts of the SE (and some other desirable places) is the increase in population without a corresponding increase in supply

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

If companies move away from food production, the food waste figures imply overproduction, then prices will rise and encourage companies to move into the sector.

I don't know why so many posters distrust capitalism to put food on their plates. Capitalism has done an excellent job of feeding people profitably at ever falling prices for decades now. The mass famines of the C20th have been outside the capitalist world where Government intervention, normally for ideological reasons, has led to terrible famines at a cost of tens of millions of lives.

I don't think there is a better economic system for delivering food and consumer goods. As regards food production, the worry is that the profit motive will lead to economical decisions with unforeseen detrimental outcomes such as the spread of antibiotic resistance in the biosphere.

I don't know whether the public are sure that the capitalist system is the best way of delivering health and care, security and defense, mass transport and communication, education, utilities, as if there's one magical formula for dealing with everything.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

I don't think there is a better economic system for delivering food and consumer goods. As regards food production, the worry is that the profit motive will lead to economical decisions with unforeseen detrimental outcomes such as the spread of antibiotic resistance in the biosphere.

I don't know whether the public are sure that the capitalist system is the best way of delivering health and care, security and defense, mass transport and communication, education, utilities, as if there's one magical formula for dealing with everything.

The price system isn't perfect and TBH I don't think there are many people think that it is. Failings are well documented and clear although I think that the price system could play a much greater part in the NHS: a lack of choice and accountability has led to some pretty horrible outcomes. How many private hospitals that starve their patients to death do you imagine are still open? All of the NHS ones still are.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

But the point above is moot because in the days when food and fags were expensive, people could still afford a nice home.

Indoor toilets, central heating, insulation, hot water, double glazing, conservatories etc. aren't free. Thankfully, being able to choose to spend money on these things instead of on food and fags has led to a better quality of life.

Nice is relative and I expect you're getting nostalgic for a time that only existed in your imagination.