Is property in a bubble?

ukcarper

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

Are you using an apple device? Go to settings then keyboards and turn Smart Keyboard off. It gets rid of the numbers instead of apostrophes etc

I am I'll give it a go it's worth a try. It worked thanks.

lisyloo

Or move away as we did. Silver lining we much prefer to live in Cornwall than London anyway.

We really enjoy living in London and don't mind the compromises in return for the benefits.
However if we wanted to move it would require a significant career change which can be difficult in your 50's. Many of my younger colleagues have told me it's difficult/impossible to not be in London for certain career choices (impossible refers to high-end fashion).

Changing your career choice isn't always that easy for example - if you nearing retirement age, work flexible/part-time for specific reasons (child care), have trained for many years for a particular career, really desire a particular career.

I guess at the end of the day you make your choice, but when choices have already been made (such as degrees or long career) then it isn't that simple to just "up sticks" and make a massive career change.

There is also the family thing as well.
My MIL is in a nursing home and FIL in hospital. Some people want or need to be close to family either dependent elderly or dependent young.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't think we should sell houses to foreigners who leave them empty forcing people to have unpleasant commutes when we appear to have a shortage of afforable/appropriate housing in the right place where people work.

Agree about the complaining, there is too much and in many cases effort would be put to better use in tryng to improve ones situation however that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to comment and debate and have our representatives in parliament raise issues about bad policy and I think a lot of empty house for foreign investment is a bad policy.

I agree selling houses to people that leave them empty doesn't help but I wonder how much if any prices would fall if they weren't there. I also agree there is no point complaining although I doubt that it would be possible for the majority to improve their situation enough to buy. Apart from a few times property has always been expensive in London and many of cheaper areas have been gentrified.

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree selling houses to people that leave them empty doesn't help but I wonder how much if any prices would fall if they weren't there. I also agree there is no point complaining although I doubt that it would be possible for the majority to improve their situation enough to buy. Apart from a few times property has always been expensive in London and many of cheaper areas have been gentrified.

We should ban hotels as well. They let rooms to foreigners, and are often partly empty.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I think it would be much better if property was affordable to more people and its not ideal when the average flat is 14x median full time earnings and a average terraced house is 20x. Just dont see that its possible to do much about it.

The country would be no better housed if house prices were half what they are, the country would be no better housed if house prices were -95% below what they are

This seems wrong doesn't it? It seems even ridiculous?
But its a simple fact. To be better housed we need more homes and or better quality homes.

So if you think we need to be better houses you should call for more homes not talk about salary multiples which are meaningless to the actual quality and quantity of housing

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

We should ban hotels as well. They let rooms to foreigners, and are often partly empty.

Flats being bought purely as an investment and not let out or used by owner are a wasted resource, but I'm not sure how big a problem it is.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

The country would be no better housed if house prices were half what they are, the country would be no better housed if house prices were -95% below what they are

This seems wrong doesn't it? It seems even ridiculous?
But its a simple fact. To be better housed we need more homes and or better quality homes.

So if you think we need to be better houses you should call for more homes not talk about salary multiples which are meaningless to the actual quality and quantity of housing

No it's logical and the only solution is to increase supply (difficult to do in significant numbers in London) or reduce demand unlikely to happen.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

No it's logical and the only solution is to increase supply (difficult to do in significant numbers in London) or reduce demand unlikely to happen.

Not really sure what the issue is. Those who can’t afford to buy simply need to be more realistic and or work harder. No other way to it I’m afraid. In simple terms those who can’t afford to buy do not deserve to buy in the first place.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

Not really sure what the issue is. Those who can’t afford to buy simply need to be more realistic and or work harder. No other way to it I’m afraid. In simple terms those who can’t afford to buy do not deserve to buy in the first place.

If only it was that simple not every body can earn 2 or 3x median earnings.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

If only it was that simple not every body can earn 2 or 3x median earnings.

They don't need to. Most UK born kids will get free housing.
Last census 2011 shows nearly 75% of UK nationals own their own homes which for all practical purposes is almost everyone. The reason 75% homeowners is pretty much full ownership is because most home owners are first renters.

Really there isn't anything wrong with UK housing its much much better than most the world.
Sure we have 20% in private rentals (booo hissss) but people don't release that its a transitional tenure. I myself rented for 9 years before buying. So to the closest 5%, 65% owners 20% private renters 15% social renters does not mean 20% never will be owners and always renters it means 80% will be owners 15% will be in social and 5£ will be long term renters. Even of that 5% long term private renters many are renters renting for free. WG someone buys a house for their mother to love in rent free. Iirc about 500,000 private rental homes are uses in this ay, evil landlords buying homes to rent out for free to their unable relatives often elderly parents but also often disabled or else tables adult children nearby.

Its a similar story with empty homes and unemployment figures. Both represented transient not permanent. When we say there are 500,000 empty homes fast forward six months and say there are Stoll 500,000 empty homes but it's a different lot of empty homes. Its like filling a bathtub up with water that has a hole on it. Properties continuously become dilapidated and empty while somewhere else properties are continuously being renovated and brought back into usable conditions. So people who cry about empty homes are mostly wrong too. Likewise the unemployment figure is more an indicator of how fast people get back into work rather than unemployment itself. The headline figure is about 4.5% but the six month figure is closer to 1.5% which means 65% of unemployed fond work in 6 months or less. But the figure doesn't go down because while roughly speaking 1 million unemployed find a job in 6 months or less some 1 million employee lose their jobs over the same 6 months.


Like I keep saying
Things really are very very good in the UK and most developed nations
Of course with 66 million people you can paint any narrative you can think of
Any in depth statistics and analysis shows things are really good even the things that look like bads like empty homes are simple misunderstanding of what's going on