"Housing Market Slumps"

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Along with pension.

don't you save any money or do you save everything in pension?

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

Agree.





Having accepted the above, that sounds really odd to me.
First time properties are often flats or at most 2 bed rabbit hutches, which might be ok for a baby.
Most people up size around the time (preferably before) they start or expand a family.
Some don't downsize later in llfe if they have a modest home (say 3 -bed semi).
Those with large homes that they don't need anymore might downsize or might buy two smaller homes.
Those who then experience disability sometimes buy bungalows or move into sheltered type accommodation that suit their needs.


How can (these days) people afford family accommodation as home number 1?
and why would you want to upsize when your thoughts turn to retirement?

The last 3 'kids' I know who bought all bought as their first home a 3 bedroom house. Also bear in mind that small homes are disproportionately owned by BTL which also suggests that there is no ladder only a step

Why do people up size near to retirement? Well where are the kids and grandkids going to sleep when the come to visit for the odd weekend?

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

don't you save any money or do you save everything in pension?

I've retired now. I have got some put by for contingencies.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

I've retired now. I have got some put by for contingencies.

well im not sure what ou earnt in the past or how much you spent. but my parents managed to save up quite a bit on an average wage and are close to retirement.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

well im not sure what ou earnt in the past or how much you spent. but my parents managed to save up quite a bit on an average wage and are close to retirement.

I didn't pay off my mortgage til I was 59 and I never earnt a high salary, so didn't save a lot. I've never had an extravagant life style no new cars or exotic holidays but I did retire early.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

there you go. a lot of wealth and that's just for median plus uk. imagine what it is for London figures (where pay is a lot higher and property has risen a lot more). people are wealthier then some people think.

Total wealth is actually fairly well known.

It is about £10 trillion and increasing

If you assume people under 25 have little to nothing and life expectancy is 75 that means the citizens have to divest £10 trillion over 50 year or some £200 billion annual.

Inheritances are about £100 billion annually (£77B in 1013/14 but must be higher now) leaving gifting to male up the other £100 billion annually.

I feel this is a very good estimate. £100 billion annual inheritances and £100 billion annually in gifts.

The arguments that it is not distributed evenly does not negate the fact that this £200 billion annual transfer exists and has a very significant economic impact.

Also I don't instinctively believe that inequality is growing. For a star you need to do some sort of purchasing power parity equivalent. If I and you live in the exact same house in 1995 but yours is in central London and mine in stoke fast forward 22 years and it night look like inequality increased as the pound value of my home stayed flat while your one went up 10x but both are exactly the same house so there needs to be some sort of 'purchasing power parity' for some fair comparison. Plenty of well off people in inner London don't feel all that well off as their pound wealth doesn't purchase as much

GreatApe

Oh and these inheritances and gifts is why the young poor vote labour but when they get older they vote conservative as they receive this gifted/inherited income

I always meet someone saying in just a few years the old right wing will die out and the left wing yoof will usher in a big majority left wing party. Only it never happens they magically convert at some point from left to right probably at the point they inherit some of this annual £200 billion

economic

i tend to agree with you GreatApe. you also have people like WindofChange (aka BagofWind) who complains all the time how life is not fair and how people are entitled to this and that. they will remain left forever.

BikingBud

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).

I thought long and hard before adding this but .....

You arrogant !!!!

All those little people that do nothing but get in the way, take the serfs away don't let them look at me.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

i tend to agree with you GreatApe. you also have people like WindofChange (aka BagofWind) who complains all the time how life is not fair and how people are entitled to this and that. they will remain left forever.

You're so far off the mark I can't even be bothered formulating a response to you. You just keep re-enforcing what you want to believe. Oh look, yet another person on here thinks you are an arrogant tool.