Relativity...

zagfles

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

This is true - same applies to food - I bet eating in restaurants isn't included in the "food" cost.

But the basics should take up a much lower proportion of income than in the 50's, for instance bread and milk, a basic house or flat, and a basic car. If not, there's something wrong...

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

I thought the housing stock had increased faster than the population since the 50's?

zagfles

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

None of those things are particularly expensive either, compared to the price of housing, ie what a 50's style house with no modernisation would cost today.

Unless you use one of the big rip-off national companies where you get 50% off if you sign on the night etc.

antrobus

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 if any 'socialist system' is any better at avoiding "unforeseen detrimental outcomes". Certainly ye olde Soviet system was pretty notorious at delivering detrimental outcomes of some enormity (such as the disappearance of the Aral Sea) , mainly because there was nobody around to question what the government wanted to do.

zagfles

cells wrote: »

The graph for housing looks to be one of imputed rents rather than mortgagge payments.

and another reason housing is a higher portion is that we actually consume more of it now than in the past

we live at 2.35 persons per home, at one point we lived at 4.7 persons per home. Therefore the amount of housing we consume has doubled as we went from 4.7 to 2.35

This is true. People keep blaiming rising population, but the housing stock has actually risen faster.

Likewise homes have got a bit bigger and better too

This isn't though. Nearly all the "new" houses I've seen around here (ie post about 1990 builds) are tiny - tiny rooms, tiny gardens, sometimes an ensuite main bedroom but a third bedroom which doesn't even have room for a full size bed!

The 1930s semis and Victorian terraces round here are far bigger than new build detatched houses.

CLAPTON

zagfles wrote: »

But the basics should take up a much lower proportion of income than in the 50's, for instance bread and milk, a basic house or flat, and a basic car. If not, there's something wrong...
I thought the housing stock had increased faster than the population since the 50's?

of course it has : that is exactly the point ; people 'want' better accommodation, single people don't live with a landlord anymore instead they aspire to have their own house or flat etc.
and of course people are prepared to spend their money where their wished are.
In London the situation is reversing, where more buys less because of the inflex of people into the area.

Housing will only take up less of people's income when the supply/demand balance changes.

wotsthat

zagfles wrote: »

None of those things are particularly expensive either, compared to the price of housing, ie what a 50's style house with no modernisation would cost today.

It's relative isn't it. Those things are cheap now but were expensive at the time because they commanded a much higher proportion of discretionary spending.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

While not wishing to fall into Michaels trap, the one thing that graph misses completely is purchase frequency.

What I mean by that you need to buy food week in week out. Therefore any savings or increases are felt by all of us.

The same applies to clothes, transport, services, power, household goods etc. We ALL have to buy it at the price it is today.

Where it doesn't apply is housing. The key to how much it costs each individual is the price you bought it at. Two identical houses next to each other can have two very significantly different costs to each neighbor.

So while a 65 year old may be consuming housing, they may not be paying for it (paid the mortgage off), a 25 year old may have just bought the house and see it taking 45% of their income.... so it skews the average household income on housing.

If people had to effectively "rent" their house at the "new" prices each month, the line on the graph would be FAR higher. As it is, the purchase cost (and therefore the household expenditure) to any one person varies wildly dependent on whether you are buying that item today for the first time or you bought it 40 years ago for the first time.

You can't say the same for any of the other items on the graph. They all have to be bought frequently at the "new" price.

The graph certainly doesn't suggest houses are cheaper. Just like it doesn't suggest tobacco is cheaper (in this case, it's the simple fact that less people smoke so less income goes on it).

Well yes, they have used the actual cost of the housing rather than making up a figure which people didn't actually spend on housing and asserting that is the real cost despite the fact that it wasn't.

If you want to draw yourself a graph on the latter basis and stick it on your wall (or post it here) there is nothing stopping you. Perhaps make housing 8,000% of income just to make yourself feel better.

ukcarper

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.

Rents were lower because a higher proportion of people were in council homes and private rents were Low because of rent controls at time.

House price to earnings ratios varied from 3x to 5x in the 70s

My first house in 1972 (in South East ) was 5.5x my salary which was about mean full time male.
My mortgage payments were about 40% of my take home pay.

ukcarper

zagfles wrote: »

This is true. People keep blaiming rising population, but the housing stock has actually risen faster. This isn't though. Nearly all the "new" houses I've seen around here (ie post about 1990 builds) are tiny - tiny rooms, tiny gardens, sometimes an ensuite main bedroom but a third bedroom which doesn't even have room for a full size bed!

The 1930s semis and Victorian terraces round here are far bigger than new build detatched houses.

That's not strickly true many older terraced houses were very small the house I was bought up in was a two up two down all rooms 12 x 12 or smaller, no bathroom and toilet up the garden.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Indoor toilets, central heating, insulation, hot water, double glazing, conservatories etc. aren't free.

Actually, insulation is free in many cases, but that's besides the point

The issue with what you have said is that it's all based on technological advancements. It isn't more expensive to have those things installed, it's just what's done now.

What's the installation cost of an indoor toilet compared to an outside toilet today? The outside toilet is probably far more expensive today. Probably many multiples more expensive.

Yet your point is to make out that people can afford these technological advancements because they spend less on food etc. Simply not the case.