"Housing Market Slumps"

ukcarper

Joeskeppi wrote: »

This is one of those threads where people care far more about winning the argument than the argument itself.

Does anybody actually win an argument on here?

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

The thing is, throughout this I haven't been trying to offer any solutions. I have been trying to guide you towards enlightenment with your reasoning and mathematics. It really is more of a telling indictment on your character that you think people like nurses are below being worthy of a place to call their own. You seem almost pleased that they are too poor to own anywhere and need to just suck it up and share a shoebox with 5 others.

The studio in Croydon you have linked to above is another example of your inability to reason. Your buddy economic was up in arms at the thought that the average person should be able to afford an average property. The nurse is the average person. You have found the average person a studio in a shitheap - i.e. pretty much as low as you can go without sleeping under a bridge.

Find me a 1 bed flat in London for 4 x salary of 25k. Thing is she couldn't even afford the studio on that multiple without a 75k deposit - lucky she is guaranteed that due to there being 500,000 people getting more than 65k according to the school of great ape.

My personal feelings are that London at least has peaked. It is widespread knowledge that prime London is crashing hard at the moment - Kensington, Mayfair etc. Whether this ripples and how far who knows. I know one thing - nothing has ever gone up forever without blips. I agree, property in 50 years time will be worth more than today, but it's what happens in-between that is of interest to me. I speak as a mortgage payer too.

I can not afford Westminster or Kensington or Earls Court or a hell of a lot of other places

In what world would it make sense for me to argue and average jo like me should be able to afford a 3 bed flat or house in any of those areas?

If there are places I can not afford, surely there will be places a nurse can not be expected to afford? If I earn more than a nurse, which i do, then surely there would be more places a nurse could not afford than places I could not afford.

Why is it a leap too far to say there are 33 places the nurse can not reasonable be expected to afford? And those 33 places are the 33 boroughs of London.

PS a nurse probably can afford something in London, I know a nurse on over £50k for instence and if they had a similar earning husband then a lot of London is affordable for them. However the above still applies, at almost every income level there is an un-affordable place

This is not surprising nor some evil that needs to be undone

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't see how you get that from that table.

what dont you understand on the table its quite straightforward

on the left hand it shows size of estates left by a certain band, and on the right had side the number of such estates. So for instance it shows for one of the bands

54,842 estates were left that had a value between £300k-£500k for the year 2013/14

If you add up all the bands from £300k upwards it shows 84,925 estates left that year that were worth more than £300k

You can break it up for more information if you have a guess as to how many people an estate is left to. We assumed 2.4 here so if you divide each estate sum of money by 2.4 and multiply the number of estates by 2.4 to get recipients you will have a fairly good estimate of inheritances received for each band

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

I can not afford Westminster or Kensington or Earls Court or a hell of a lot of other places

In what world would it make sense for me to argue and average jo like me should be able to afford a 3 bed flat or house in any of those areas?

If there are places I can not afford, surely there will be places a nurse can not be expected to afford? If I earn more than a nurse, which i do, then surely there would be more places a nurse could not afford than places I could not afford.

Why is it a leap too far to say there are 33 places the nurse can not reasonable be expected to afford? And those 33 places are the 33 boroughs of London.

PS a nurse probably can afford something in London, I know a nurse on over £50k for instence and if they had a similar earning husband then a lot of London is affordable for them. However the above still applies, at almost every income level there is an un-affordable place

This is not surprising nor some evil that needs to be undone

theres no point in even discussing this with windofchange. he/she wont understand and is also biased as he/she works in the NHS. very rude and aggresive and presumptuous.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

So everybody takes your attitude and nobody gets cared for when they are ill. Society needs people doing all sorts of jobs some are well paid some are not, if everybody earns more the same amount of people would still not be able to buy as property is rationed by price, the only way more people could buy is if there was more property.

it is not a moral question it is an economic one

There are places I can not afford places you can not afford places a nurse can not afford.
Who decides who should be able to afford what and where?

If a nurse can complain that she can not afford a 1 bedroom flat in walthamstow can I complain that I can not afford a 1 bedroom flat in Kensinton? Why is her plight worse than mine?

What about a refuse collector, what if he can not afford a 1 bedroom in Enfield, even cheaper than walthamstow, is his job not vital is his job not hard is he not worth your compassion?

when you try to re-frame economic questions as moral one everything breaks down and we fall into nonsense debates. Why should a nurse not be able to buy a nice car she does a fantastic job. Why should a refuse collector not be able to live in earls court he is a good man. Why should a teacher not be able to buy expensive brands of cloths she is lovely!


Purchasing goods or services is an economic question not a mortal one.
If you believe a nurse should be able to buy a one bedroom flat in inner London then you should argue that nurses in London should be paid a minimium of £100k. There is no useful debate to be had when you or others say that people who can not afford good or service A should be able to afford A because the person is nice and I like and value them so something is wrong with the world if a person I value can not get service/good A.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

what dont you understand on the table its quite straightforward

on the left hand it shows size of estates left by a certain band, and on the right had side the number of such estates. So for instance it shows for one of the bands

54,842 estates were left that had a value between £300k-£500k for the year 2013/14

If you add up all the bands from £300k upwards it shows 84,925 estates left that year that were worth more than £300k

You can break it up for more information if you have a guess as to how many people an estate is left to. We assumed 2.4 here so if you divide each estate sum of money by 2.4 and multiply the number of estates by 2.4 to get recipients you will have a fairly good estimate of inheritances received for each band

If there are 84,925 estates of over £300k and they are for simplicity sack say have 2 beneficiaries they get £150k each, so unless the pot is over £599k they get less than £300k.

economic

nursing is also a low skilled job, hence nurse pay should be reflective of that. pay probably should be in line with care workers in old peoples home and similar but ultimately supply demand should determine it as with anything. also being part of the NHS, their pay is funded by us in the private sector. essentially they work for us. a friend of mine has parents as doctors and he tells me that there is so much waste in the NHS thats its crazy. lots of admin jobs being paid a quite a bit thats essentially a waste of time and resources.

can not wait for robotics and AI to become mainstream. will eradicate so many of these low skilled jobs that we wont ever have to worry about shortages (if there actually are any).

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

If there are 84,925 estates of over £300k and they are for simplicity sack say have 2 beneficiaries they get £150k each, so unless the pot is over £599k they get less than £300k.

yes.

Taking the midpoint of the bands

21,742 estates of (£500,000 to £1m so use £750,000 as the midpoint)
So if we are amusing 2.4 beneficiaries that means
52,180 beneficiaries that receive £312,500 each

repeat for each of the higher bands

And this is for 2013/14. As discussed before you can probably up each band by 25% to take into account higher asset prices (homes, shares) plus the positive savings rate since then.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

nursing is also a low skilled job, hence nurse pay should be reflective of that. pay probably should be in line with care workers in old peoples home and similar but ultimately supply demand should determine it as with anything. also being part of the NHS, their pay is funded by us in the private sector. essentially they work for us. a friend of mine has parents as doctors and he tells me that there is so much waste in the NHS thats its crazy. lots of admin jobs being paid a quite a bit thats essentially a waste of time and resources.

can not wait for robotics and AI to become mainstream. will eradicate so many of these low skilled jobs that we wont ever have to worry about shortages (if there actually are any).

Next time your in hospital following major surgery I take it you will be happy for a care worker to look after you.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

yes.

Taking the midpoint of the bands

21,742 estates of (£500,000 to £1m so use £750,000 as the midpoint)
So if we are amusing 2.4 beneficiaries that means
52,180 beneficiaries that receive £312,500 each

repeat for each of the higher bands

And this is for 2013/14. As discussed before you can probably up each band by 25% to take into account higher asset prices (homes, shares) plus the positive savings rate since then.

im not at all surprised by these numbers. clearly there are significant sums being gifted and inherited and by many people to.

i remember in previous posts you mention that this means rates will stay low for much longer? why is this as i didnt fully understand?