More evidence of increasing wealth gap

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

say this outload
if you want to start a family then you really need to do it in your 30s
so you need property in your 30s
so one thinks in terms of over 90% of people who will ever own to do so in their 30s

Those in the social stock don't have children? If you include them the 64% jumps to what 80-85%? And how do you expect a single mum with 4 babies age 6 months to 6 years to buy their own home? How low do you think property prices would need to be for a non working songle mother on benefits to buy?

Also surprisingly 10% of those in the highest 10% income decline also rent. Again showing that the notion of close to 100% ownership is silluy

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

In 2011 42% of people between 25 and 34 owned compared to 59% in 2001.

And about 30-35% of those age 16-24 owned in 1981 yet today we obviously don't expect many of that age group to own as they are mostly still at school during those years. It's changing lifecycles not property ownership

This is why during 1990s the 'golden age of affordability' ownership feel for the 16-24 age group for the 25-34 age group and the 35-44 age group. So if ownership fell for the 16-44 age group during the 1990s what does that tell you? It says there was an underlying reason which was not price as prices were cheap in the 1990s and that underlying reason is different lifecycles.

If you look at the IFS report and shift each generation back say 3 years the graphs don't look all that different.


Like I keep saying people look at data in a one dimensional single variable way and come to the wrong conclusions. Ownership is Lowe for younger people and it has fallen but its not solely down to price else why would ownership for the young have fallen in the 1990s?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

say this outload
if you want to start a family then you really need to do it in your 30s
so you need property in your 30s
so one thinks in terms of over 90% of people who will ever own to do so in their 30s

The firues are for the head of the household. If the man is 3 years older than the women you should shift the figures down by 3 years. Which would mean 42% of women aged 22-31 owned in 2011 and 59% of women waged 32-41 owned. and once again this is total which maxes out at ~75


So 59/75 =79% of all women who will ever own own by around the age of 32-41

A number of them will also be in social housing too

mrginge

cells wrote: »

Like I keep saying people look at data in a one dimensional single variable way and come to the wrong conclusions.

Bit rich that coming from the man (?) who endlessly repeats the 1% unemployment stat regardless of whether it's sensible or appropriate.

Because of course, with unemployment being 1% everyone can afford to buy a house.
Everyone gets a massive inheritance.
Everyone is better off.
Nobody has any debt.
Everything is brilliant for everyone.

And I know this because all the people I know have got lots of cash and chuck it round like Monopoly money. :doh:

cells

mrginge wrote: »

Bit rich that coming from the man (?) who endlessly repeats the 1% unemployment stat regardless of whether it's sensible or appropriate.

Because of course, with unemployment being 1% everyone can afford to buy a house.
Everyone gets a massive inheritance.
Everyone is better off.
Nobody has any debt.
Everything is brilliant for everyone.

And I know this because all the people I know have got lots of cash and chuck it round like Monopoly money. :doh:

what do you think the reasons were for declining ownership for those aged 16-44 in the 1990s when homes were cheap?

System

cells wrote: »

no I think its quite random

I think you must live in a very idealised world if you haven't noticed that it is far from random - people tend to marry those similar to themselves, and the rich for obvious reasons are especially cautious about marrying the impoverished.
You should read a few nineteenth century novels.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

And about 30-35% of those age 16-24 owned in 1981 yet today we obviously don't expect many of that age group to own as they are mostly still at school during those years. It's changing lifecycles not property ownership

This is why during 1990s the 'golden age of affordability' ownership feel for the 16-24 age group for the 25-34 age group and the 35-44 age group. So if ownership fell for the 16-44 age group during the 1990s what does that tell you? It says there was an underlying reason which was not price as prices were cheap in the 1990s and that underlying reason is different lifecycles.

If you look at the IFS report and shift each generation back say 3 years the graphs don't look all that different.


Like I keep saying people look at data in a one dimensional single variable way and come to the wrong conclusions. Ownership is Lowe for younger people and it has fallen but its not solely down to price else why would ownership for the young have fallen in the 1990s?

It fell in 90s but in fell more in 2000s yet social change was greater in the 90s. You are the one drawing the wrong conclusion from a single variable then and then disregarding anything that contradicts your view.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

It fell in 90s

Why?..,,,...

CLAPTON

I don't know why OO fell in the 90s but it might be the usual impact of deflation.
there was a hugh housing bubble in the late 80 and into the early 90 partly caused by Lawson, after which houses fell in price.
once house prices fall, and more importantly are believed will continue to fall, then people hold off from buying as they will be cheaper next year.
even if prices are flat that will encourage people to save more, knowing the prices won't rise, so they can buy a better house later.

of course once prices do start to rise, then panic buying sets in with all that backlog of people wanting house but who delaid.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Why?..,,,...

You tell me why if fell more in 2000s than the 90s when the impact of social change was lower.