Homes in the UK still very cheap/affordable

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

It's is relevant to this thread as the OP is saying property is affordable to people on median wage.

That's not what I said

I said property is cheap in 8 of the regions and affordable in 2 of the regions for A FULL TIME working COUPLE EARNING THE MEDIAN NON CHILD NON RETIRED WAGE and that it would also make sense to base a median once removing the poorest 17%(24% London) as some 17%-24% are social homes

what bagofWind clearly showed us is that one of the more expensive boroughs in london are unaffordable by part time workers, kids, and part time pensioners. Correct he is

norm_

So if houses are so cheap, why are ownership levels declining?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/home-ownership-rate/forecast

economic

oh why wont anyone think of the poor nurses?????

davomcdave

cells wrote: »

I agree that areas outside of the south of England are mostly cheap.

I'm not sure why you'd assume that a woman earns 90% of what a man earns. For a start women don't earn that much on average, secondly couples have children at which point women's earnings often fall to c. £0 (what's the point in earning £20k a year in a job you probably don't like and paying out pretty much all of that in childcare and taxes?), thirdly average household incomes aren't a mulitple of male median incomes. The median household income is less than £24k a year.

GreatApe

norm_ wrote: »

So if houses are so cheap, why are ownership levels declining?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/home-ownership-rate/forecast

Renting has increased for 3 primary reasons

1. You are comparing it from the minimum point of renting ever

2. Lots more EU migrants over the decade. 3-4 million? And many are temporary transient as evidence by the high migration both in and out of the EU. They need rentals so 1-1.5 million additional rentals were needed for them.

3. Mortgage regulations mean some groups who could buy previously can no longer buy

As evidence you can look at the cheapest regions and still see that renting has increased rather than fallen

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

So one of the more expensive London boroughs are unaffordable when you look at the wages of part time working children and pensioners. The power of ignorance and confirmation bias.

I total agree with you the more expensive boroughs are unaffordable by part time workers.
So now find the full time workers wage of working age adults 25-55 and compare it to a more middle of the road borough like say Walthamforest and see what you get

I have no idea what you are on about. Before trying sarcasm, perhaps check what you are commenting on? You asked me to put in childless working people. As per my post, roughly 1 in 5 people today don't have children (down from 1 in 9 in the 1940's), so 20%. I have then presented the average wage for these people in my borough. I don't know where you have got the idea I am talking about pensioners and children from? It's quite ironic that you are trying to call me ignorant when you can't read a post correctly!

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

I have no idea what you are on about. Before trying sarcasm, perhaps check what you are commenting on? You asked me to put in childless working people. As per my post, roughly 1 in 5 people today don't have children (down from 1 in 9 in the 1940's), so 20%. I have then presented the average wage for these people in my borough. I don't know where you have got the idea I am talking about pensioners and children from? It's quite ironic that you are trying to call me ignorant when you can't read a post correctly!

i understand GreatApe. i think it is you who needs to smarten up. you didnt know what median meant so im not surprised you do not understand simple concepts, hence the confusion. hence why this thread is just going back and forth and GreatApe has to keep explaining. you should just give up.

GreatApe

davomcdave wrote: »

I agree that areas outside of the south of England are mostly cheap.

I'm not sure why you'd assume that a woman earns 90% of what a man earns. For a start women don't earn that much on average, secondly couples have children at which point women's earnings often fall to c. £0 (what's the point in earning £20k a year in a job you probably don't like and paying out pretty much all of that in childcare and taxes?), thirdly average household incomes aren't a mulitple of male median incomes. The median household income is less than £24k a year.

Womens earnings might fall to zero if they so choose to not work but often that is temporary. It was not uncommon for mothers when I were a kid to have near full time work. Many if the mother's I knew started work at 9 and finished at 3 so a 6 hour shift 5 days a week was 30 hours nearly full time yet still able to take the kids to school and collect them as school hours were 9-3.30

Also we looked at the terrace houses, flats would be cheaper. Plus people earnings go up plus people get gifts and inheritances.

Simply put property is cheap in most the country the only place it isn't cheap is London and there its affordable for a median couple working fulltime

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

I have no idea what you are on about. Before trying sarcasm, perhaps check what you are commenting on? You asked me to put in childless working people. As per my post, roughly 1 in 5 people today don't have children (down from 1 in 9 in the 1940's), so 20%. I have then presented the average wage for these people in my borough. I don't know where you have got the idea I am talking about pensioners and children from? It's quite ironic that you are trying to call me ignorant when you can't read a post correctly!

The average median wages you quoted include children and kidadults and pensioners and part time workers.

You need to look at everyone in London, line them all up from lowest earner to highest. You then tell the part time workers to leave the line. You tell the children and kidaults to leave the line. You tell the pensioners to leave the line.
What remains you look right in the middle and say sir how much do you earn and that is your median non kids non pensioners non kidadults median full time wage. A figure a good deal higher than the first line with children part time workers and the retired.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

The average median wages you quoted include children and kidadults and pensioners and part time workers.

You need to look at everyone in London, line them all up from lowest earner to highest. You then tell the part time workers to leave the line. You tell the children and kidaults to leave the line. You tell the pensioners to leave the line.
What remains you look right in the middle and say sir how much do you earn and that is your median non kids non pensioners non kidadults median full time wage. A figure a good deal higher than the first line with children part time workers and the retired.

if he doesnt understand this then just lose all hope and give up.