Today's Bear food

lisyloo

No, but they do have the option of downsizing almost anywhere else in the world excluding a few capital cities. Better to have that option than not. My parents (like most adults of their generation) have much more modest homes In Terms of capital.
We can all choose to make ourselves miserable because we can't afford necker island or happy because we're better off than at least 7.5 billion other people. It's entirely personal choice.

cells

p1212 wrote: »

lol at the boomer who got his properties at the absolute lowest price/earnings ratio and now so proud

If they were at the absolute lowest price/earning then, which they probably were, why do you think that was the norm we could or should go to? Even your own statement clearly points out 20 years ago (especially in London) was a very big abnormal

chucknorris

cells wrote: »

If they were at the absolute lowest price/earning then, which they probably were, why do you think that was the norm we could or should go to? Even your own statement clearly points out 20 years ago (especially in London) was a very big abnormal

That's a very good question, I'd also like to hear the answer to that too.

cells

p1212 wrote: »

Really? Every boomer who's bought in London for peanuts is very close to being a millionaire, as the average house costs almost a million in London.

You say don't spend time on forums, well the problem is not really the forum posts, the problem is that houses are going up in my area at 100K per year. Let's calculate how much money you would need to save up that much, 100K per year savings, that's more than 8 grand per month + you live somewhere, eat something, let's say net 10 grand per month.

That is 210K per year salary just to keep up with the inflation.

That is the problem, not the forum posts.

How would you ration housing if not by price?
Don't take that as an offensive post it's a simple question. I don't think there is a realistic alternative.

In which case if you want the price to be lower you either reduce the number of bidders or increase the number of properties coming to market. Neither of which you seem to talk much about

I do have some sympathy for you. You happen to live in the capital where the marginal buyers are richer (either I through wages or in a lot of cases inheritences and gifts) than yourself. But don't make up nonsense about central banks or the government out to get you. What is a London 'problem' does not really apply to 80% of the country where property is very affordable.

I also have sympathy for the view that those who were born earlier had more opportunities in the housing market but it's clear that a lot of people didn't make much of the opportunity so given the same setup not a lot of people would make much if the opportunity. Also the young will have opportunities that were not available to the older generation. Eg the tech revolution has created a lot of billionaires and millionaires.

cells

p1212 wrote: »

And what this proves, who wants to buy there? If you go to namibia, you could buy even cheaper, what is the point?

Now let me tell you in my area the yearly price inflation was 100K, your whole house wouldn't qualify as a deposit.

Yes its not nice if you live in an area where people have the ability to outbid you. But what should be done about it? No stupid hpc ideas something that would work and could be implemented.

The closest thing I can think of, and believe me I've spent much more time than yourself thinking this though, is if London sold its social stock down from ~24% of the stock towards ~10% of the stock over a period of about 20 years combined with a tough housing benefit cap that pushed the poor out of London. That would mean more supply for sale which will push down prices relative to what they otherwise would be. That would 'work' but it won't be political possible as the left wing will cry foul and stop it so in fact it won't work. Any other idea is even further from plausible

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Average house prices is not close to £1 million and what about us boomers who couldn't afford to buy in London. Back in the seventies in relation to earnings prices were a lot higher than the nineties and you could borrow less.

He probably doesn't realise it but London experienced two amazingly rare factors which made London (and especially inner London) very cheap. It went on a building boom while its population was shrinking.

Inner London went from 4.9 million people in 1931 to 2.6 million in 1991. Almost half the population disappeared. Let me say that again, almost half the population disappeared. While during that time a huge quantity of housing was built. An example would be the kingsmede estate in hackney the largest social estate in the country with about 1000 flats was started building I think in 1937 and many more such social estates were built after that. As an estimate I think almost half of the homes in inner London were built between 1931-1991. So the population crashed in half and the housing stock doubled. The result was that in the 1990s housing in London and especially inner London was ridiculously cheap. I know a few people who bought flats during that time for the £20-40k mark which is below building materials cost so you get the land the utilities the labour and the internals all for free.

Since 1991 the picture started to change. Build rates fell and population started to recover. Inner London prices have risen more than outer London as the inner London population as a percentage has increased faster. Inner London population up some 25% between 1991-2011 while outer London up about 16%.

The mad swing in price in inner London has good reasons

lisyloo

Some of the poor have been pushed out of London. Empty barracks were bought elsewhere (can't remember the name but it was on the main BBC news tonight). There has been a backlash from local people because it's meant the housing isn't available for locals, plus local infrastructure is under extra pressure. I guess it's all relative but still it doesn't make a happy local community to dump the poor on them.

economic

when i was in the process on buying my first property in 2013, i was always debating to myself whether i am buying into the top of the market or not. i went on holiday to Burma and spoke to a local there. prices back then in Yangon (capital of burma) for a 2 bed apartment was somewhere around £3-400k for somewhere quite close to central. it made me a lot more comfortable to buy my 2 bed flat in kilburn i was buying for £450k.

people like p1212 just do not get that earnings ratios are meaningless. if you thought london earnings ratio was high, well what about cities like Yangon? it will be astromnomical there!.

whenever i read news articles, research or MSE posters taking about price to earnings ratio being high and will result in prices falling, i immediately take no notice of them.

p1212

ukcarper wrote: »

Average house prices is not close to £1 million and what about us boomers who couldn't afford to buy in London. Back in the seventies in relation to earnings prices were a lot higher than the nineties and you could borrow less.

I am talking about HOUSE prices, no flats included.
Average house prices are around 950K-1 million.

ukcarper

p1212 wrote: »

I am talking about HOUSE prices, no flats included.
Average house prices are around 950K-1 million.

How many boomers do you think are sitting in £1 million pound houses.

Lang registry data show average prices are considerable less than £1 million I fact average detached house price is £88k.